Put Up or Shut Up

It truly has been a very long time since I have posted a blog entry, and I do apologize for that.  And there has been so very much that I should have blogged about.  But the truth is that a lot has happened in my life both personally and professionally since that last blog post and those changes have kind of deflated me a little bit where the desire to write has decreased a great deal, and the spare time available to me to write has also taken a hit.

 

However, the reason I am picking up the keyboard today is because I have been considering, very seriously considering, announcing my candidacy for the 85^th Assembly district.  And I had made a promise to myself that today, March 13^th, would be the day of the announcement.

 

The reason why I feel now would be a good time to make a run at that seat (as an independent as I really don’t identify myself well with any particular party) is that I feel there is a very high likelihood that this will be an open seat, with no incumbent.  My current representative in the Assembly, Donna Seidel (D-Wausau), has announced that she plans on going up against Senator Pam Galloway (R-Wausau) in the now-certain upcoming recall election.  With Senator Galloway being a freshman with just over a year of service and there being a pretty strong anti-republican feel to things, I put Rep. Seidel’s chances of success in that Senate election pretty high.  This would leave the 85^th up for grabs.

 

So far, two people have declared their interest in running for this seat.  And any hopes thatWausauarea moderates had for a candidate they can truly support are waning quickly.  Although I am hopeful others will announce their candidacy, as it stands right now we have the chair (or former chair?) of the Marathon County Democratic Party going up against a right wing local Rush-wanna-be radio host.

 

And then there is me.  I have been saying for a long time that I want to make a run for the Assembly, and I have been saying that I want to make that run as an independent.  I truly believe that the more left the Democrats go and the more right that the Republicans go that there is a larger and larger base of people who are somewhere in the middle who are able to identify less and less with either party.  To me, the timing could not be much better.  A larger “middle” hoping to not go to the ballot box and figure out who is the least worst choice combined with a district with no incumbent.  So for me, it is truly time to put up or shut up.

 

After long consideration and discussions with friends and family, possible political allies and potential political opponents… with people who strongly support my run and would help with the campaign and with people who think that my run would be a bad idea because that third party vote would hurt their chosen candidate… with Madison insiders whom I trust, and a few whom I often question the motives of… and most importantly, long discussions with Mrs. Rent who for over a year now has been in Oklahoma because she was not able to find a job in her field here… After all of this, I have decided that although it may not be time to truly shut up… it is not right for me to put up.

 

I am not going to run for Assembly, at least not this election cycle.

 

There are a great number of reasons why I was thinking that it would not be a good idea to run, but the more people I talked to whose opinion I value, they indicated that every reason I thought I would make a bad candidate is actually something that would help my case.

 

For example, one of the big changes in my life since my last blog entry is that I am no longer a small business owner.  After trying to weather these hard economic times, I just couldn’t hold out much longer and I was able to negotiate turning my properties back over to where I purchased them.  I thought that failing in my business venture would not help my case as a candidate.  Also having a wife who lives inOklahomawouldn’t help me either.  However, I am told those things might actually help.  I know what it is like to be impacted by this economy… to have a business venture fail, for my wife to have to find a job a thousand miles away because there was no work for her here… these are things that families can relate with.  People want someone they can identify with and I am going through things they can relate to.

 

However, the main reason that I have decided not to run is because it is pretty clear that I am going to be running against two very well-funded partisan candidates.  I will not be able to compete against them in the money game.  Therefore, I will need to compete by doing what I do best.  By talking… by writing… by having the electorate get to know me and who I truly am.  By getting my message out there about what I believe in and what I oppose… and on what things I think I need to do to represent them.  The way to compete against money and ads and special interests is to get out and talk to people, one at a time and win each vote by asking people to vote for the person, and not the party.

 

I truly believe that I could actually win with this strategy.  I don’t want to run and get 5% of the vote, I want to make a race of it.

 

The problem, what I would need to do to win, that one on one… that knocking on doors… that is just something I don’t know that I can do.

 

First of all… when would I do it?  Because I no longer own my own business, I can no longer make my own hours.  I am on someone else’s payroll now.  I can’t afford to leave that job to take the time to campaign, and with that job taking anywhere from 60-70 hours per week, that doesn’t leave much time for me to get my message out there.

 

However, time is not the biggest obstacle… my own comfort level is.  For those familiar with personality typing… I am an I-S-T-J using the Myers-Briggs typing… or an Introverted Sensing Thinking Judger.  It is a personality that is actually well suited for public service and is often called the personality that “Does What Needs to be Done.”

 

The problem is that I am, by nature, a private person.  I don’t think people realize how big of a deal it is that I write this blog and often share personal feelings and experiences.  I am not on facebook or myspace or twitter, because those social media outlets are a voluntary invasion of privacy in my opinion.  This style of campaign will require me to open myself up to my district, the state.. the world for that matter and I am not sure I am comfortable doing that.

 

Although I do really enjoy public speaking and I think I would do extremely well in debates and speeches and things like that, to win as an independent, I would need to go beyond the large group setting and knock on doors and talk to people one-on-one.  I would need to shake hands and start “Hi, my name is John…”   To be brutally honest with myself, and with you, I don’t know that I have that in me.

 

So, I will not be on the November ballot for Assembly, and I apologize to those who want so strongly for me to run that they were ready to help out on the campaign.  But, I must be true to myself.  I know what I must do to get elected, and I just don’t believe that I can do what needs to be done.  I have always believed that if you are going to do something, do it right.  Throw yourself into it 110%.  If you are not going to give it your all and give it all that you have, you should probably not even do it. 

 

Do it right or don’t do it at all.  I am choosing to not do it at all and hereby declare my non-candidacy.

Weston’s Final NO to Bus Service (P.S. I Don’t Think It’s About the Money)

The events of the last few months has me confused… perplexed… even somewhat baffled one could say.

 

What events are those?  The republican presidential primary battle?  The recallWalkerefforts?  The occupy movement? 

 

Nope.. what has me at nearly a loss for words is the complete and total regression in the village leadership for Weston.  That community that I used to use as model for how municipal government is supposed to work… That community that “got it”…  That community that I used to consider the best governed in the state… That community that has basically mastered the art of stakeholder input…  well THAT community has completely lost touch. 

 

Weston’s “LEADER”-ship has de-volved into Weston’s dictatorship.  They have become yet one more unit of government that knows what’s best for their citizens and taxpayers.  They no longer need to listen to other opinions, or even ask for the thoughts of those whom they govern.  You either agree with the Weston leadership, or you are in the way.

 

These are some pretty strong words coming from me.  I tend to be fairly objective when I criticize… but alas so great is my level of disappointment with the leaders of Weston that I have no choice but to say what I really think.

 

This entire thing comes from the bus/public transportation issue.  Weston has always been a very good steward of tax dollars.  So, when they originally were going to cut public transportation because the Village simply couldn’t afford to spend $100,000 on something very few people use.  Well… I get that.  As a tax payer, I don’t necessarily disagree with the fiscal argument.  (How I feel about the social argument may be a different matter, but that I have already blogged about.)

 

However, the more this situation evolves… I can’t help but think that this is not a fiscal issue at all… but it smells a lot like a social issue.  It smells a lot like theVillageofWestondoesn’t want the “kind of people” who use public transportation, and the Village can eliminate even having those people there by just eliminating the bus.  The Village wants the young professionals.  They don’t want the disabled, or the elderly, or those on a fixed income.

 

How can I draw such a conclusion…  well let’s look at how this situation evolved.

 

-         Weston announces very early this year they are ending bus service as of 2012 because the $100,000 doesn’t make sense based on the number of people who use this service.

 

-         Transit system officials come back with a proposal cutting drastically the number of runs the bus makes, cutting the total cost by nearly two-thirds.  Weston had originally said they would not revisit the issue unless there was some drastic changes in what it cost.  Well, cutting the cost to well under half was not “drastic” enough and Weston refused to re-visit the issue.

 

-         Weston was going to make keeping bus service the taxpayer question of the month on their website, but then decided there was no reason to get input from the public and it informed staff to not make it a question.

 

-         Bus riders unite, organize, and get a significant number of signatures on a petition that would force the Village to make bus service a referendum item.

 

-         Even with the large number of signers (who are Village residents and taxpayers), the Village decides not to revisit bus service for 2012, but will instead let it go to referendum so that citizens can decide if bus service should return in 2013.

 

-         The most recent development is that Weston’s Attorney had deemed the referendum illegal.  What I think happened, is that Weston’s leadership didn’t want this referendum to happen and tasked their attorney with trying to find some loop-hole to justify NOT putting this question up to referendum.

 

If this was about the money, you had me.  It is becoming very clear this has absolutely nothing to do about the money.  The cost was cut drastically, and still Weston would not reconsider.  A petition was signed by thousands, and still Weston would not reconsider.

 

What is the harm in the referendum?  If the vast majority of Weston residents don’t feel the bus service is worth spending tax money on, let it go to a vote and let the people decide.  Village leaders will then be vindicated.  The public will have spoken and the bus service will justifiably end.

 

But… the only reason I can see for Weston to try so hard to keep this off the ballot is because they fear that the general public DOES understand the role that public transportation plays.  And if the electorate decides that bus service stays… then of course that undesirable population that comes with bus service also stays. 

 

That is the conclusion I draw from all of this… I don’t see how a different conclusion can be drawn.  If it is about the money, why not put it to a vote?  After all, law freezes how much in property taxes can be charged unless an increase is put to voters in a referendum, and that is exactly what this is.

 

So… once again.. the government knows what’s better for the people than the people they govern.  I expect this from those idiots in congress… I expect this from those idiots inMadison.  It doesn’t surprise when this happens inWausau.  But… for Weston to decide to get on that bandwagon – well.. there goes the neighborhood…

Wausau Area Businesses that have Posted Signage Banning Weapons

Today, for the first time in many years, I am legally carrying a concealed firearm.  The reason I am carrying – it is laundry coin day and I will be walking around with fairly heavy bags that could contain over $1,000 in quarters.  The reason I am legal, because I have Wisconsin-issued permit to do so.

I am not one of those people who plan on carrying every day because I can.  On days where I might be transporting large deposits, carrying coin from laundry machines, or delivering eviction notices is when I am most likely to use this newly granted right.  Therefore, today is the first day since getting the permit I am actually using it.

However, up until today, I have been paying attention when I run my errands.  I have been looking at places that I visit to see if they have posted notices banning weapons.  Basically, because I think this is good information to know ahead of time.  Like most CCW permit holders, it is my intention to be a law-abiding citizen.  Therefore, when I see that a business bans weapons, I am going to respect that ban even though technically, there is no way they would know I actually have one.

I know that some CCW permit holders are going to start boycotting those businesses that cause them the inconvenience of getting to the door, seeing the sign, and then having to go back to the car to secure the weapon before going inside.  I am not one of those.  Where I do business depends on the value and the service of the business.  They have a right to ban weapons just as I have the right to carry one.  I am not going to stop using a business solely because they are not comfortable with Wisconsin’s CCW law.

To avoid those incidents where law-abiding, armed CCW permit holders are inconvenienced with weapon prohibition signs, this blog post will serve as a public service announcement to Wausau area CCW permit holders to know where some of these signs can be found.  That way, if you are going to this business, you know AHEAD OF TIME to secure the weapon in your vehicle.

This is a list of places where I have personally seen weapon prohibition signs.  If you see a business in the Wausau area that prohibits weapons but don’t see it on this list, post a comment to this blog post.  As I have some time, I will go by and verify the property is in fact posted and will add it to this list.  (If you wish to remain unnamed to the general public, let me know this in your blog comment and I will post the location of the sign after it is verified, but will NOT post your comment.)

PLACES IN THE WAUSAU AREA WHERE DR RENT HAS SEEN SIGNS NOT ALLOWING WEAPONS.

ACE HARDWARE CENTER – WESTON, 2606 Schofield Avenue, Weston

The GRAND THEATER, Downtown Wausau (Added to list 12/27/11, picture sent to me)

H T COBBLERY, 327 Third St, Wausau (A picture of the sign was sent to me)

MARATHON COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 500 Forest Street, Wausau

SPRINT, 705 S. 24^th Avenue, Wausau

WAUSAU CENTER MALL, Downtown Wausau (A picture of the sign was sent to me)

WAUSAU CITY HALL, 407 Grant Street, Wausau  (Note, I have not actually seen the weapons signs at Wausau City Hall, but based on meeting minutes, I know they are coming.)

Again, the purpose of this list is NOT so that CCW permit holders can boycott these businesses.  Those places where I have seen the signs are businesses that I use and am very happy with the services they provide and I will continue to do business with.  I am simply trying to save CCW permit holders the inconvenience of having to walk back to their car to secure the weapon after seeing the sign, by knowing the sign is there ahead of time, hopefully I can save you that trouble.

The Wausau Daily Herald and Facebook

Even though I don’t post blog entries every day, I do venture onto my blog once or twice a day to check the statistics.  WordPress has awesome web tracking stats that can be broken down by day, week, month, year, etc.  Not only does it tell me how many people visited my blog each day, it tells me which blog entries they read.  What I have found very interesting is they also track what people typed into search engines that lead them to my blog.  (NOTE:  The most common search term that brings up my blog is when people are looking for information on Rent Certificates, which tells me I will need to do a new rent certificate post a little closer to tax time.)

 

If someone came to my blog because they were lead there from a different website, that is also listed.  The most common reference here is when people go to the blog of my friend Tristan Petitt who is an attorney in Milwaukee(http://petriestocking.com/blog/).  He sometimes mentions my blog, or I sometimes comment on his posts, and people get to my blog from his.

 

However, yesterday I noticed that someone got to my blog from the Wausau Daily Herald’s website.  However, the exact location they got there was a very long website name.  Out of curiosity, I clicked on it.  Recently, the Daily Herald had a story about how the comment section of their articles was going start being done as Facebook posts.  The person who came to my blog got there from the comment section of this post.  At that time yesterday afternoon, there was well over 100 posts, the vast majority of which were not to pleased with this decision of the Daily Herald internet gods.  I went through each and every comment, to see which one might have lead to my blog… but I was not mentioned once.. so I am perplexed.

 

Early today, I popped over to Citizen Wausau and noticed there was a comment there also about the whole Daily Herald-Facebook thing.  So.. as a past “power user” over at the Herald, I thought I would throw in my two cents.

 

A long time ago in a galaxy far away, I was one of the contributing writers to a local blog called, of all things, WausauBlog.  I spend a lot of time atWausauCity Hall, and at that time, the reporter who covered that “beat” was D J Slater.  He told me to check out the Daily Heralds forum boards and I did.  And from there it all started.

 

I became one of the more regular and recognized users of their site.  Back in those days, all comments went to the forum area.  Then they changed the format of the website and the comments stayed with the articles and the forums were all separate.  Many (including myself) didn’t care for this, because articles basically were hard to find after a few days, so the long discussions that would happen would be gone within a week.  But, I kept with it.

 

The Dr. Rent blog started out a long time ago as a Yahoo 360 page that basically gave radio show previews… but it was revised as a true blog covering all sorts of topics on the Daily Herald website, and they gave that blog some pretty top billing.  I was listed on the website as a featured blog… and when the print version would do an article of the best of the blogs, my blog would be featured more than it wasn’t.  My participation in their online community lead to an invitation to serve as a reader-member of their editorial board.  Times were good.

 

However, my blog fell under attack there, and I started doing a duplicate blog over at Citizen Wausau.  They then changed formats again and I was no longer able to post blog posts in the normal method I did… so the Dr. Rent blog came to an end at the Daily Herald’s website.  Also, my computer is not new, it is a 7 year old system running Windows XP and some old version of IE, and the newest version of the Herald’s new website would constantly lock up my computer.  Because of that, I now check for the daily news on the mobile version of their website on my Blackberry and spend very little time on the actual internet version of their site.

 

Also, when it crashes my system, it logs me out and it is a pain to look up my password in order to log back in only to be logged out again.  For this reason, you have not seen Dr Rent commenting on articles or on forum board topics on that site in quite some time.  However, had I not already brought my commenting to a close, this Facebook thing would have.

 

I set up a Facebook (and MySpace) account a long time ago because I attended a landlord-tenant seminar that said that these sites were good tools in tenant underwriting.  You can learn a lot about a potential rental applicant by doing a facebook search.  I did find some interesting things on a few applicants, but did not stick with it because I wasn’t sure how to use this as a screening tool and still comply with fair housing laws.

 

Then, some people who I served with in the military found me, and I started “friending” them.  I also “friended” people who asked, who were “fans” of Dr. Rent, and that is where I went wrong.  Long story short, some people who were not happy with some business decisions (i.e. evictions or collections) found ways to start harassing my friends on facebook, and that was drama I simply didn’t need, so I shut the whole thing down.

 

The Daily Herald is a private business, and as such, they have every right to modify their website in any way they want.  Personally, I think the dialoge that people could add to articles added value, it made things interesting.  It made the newspaper interactive.  I understand from the comments made by WDHAdministrator in that comment thread, this is a business decision that probably makes pretty good financial sense if I have to be honest.  However, I do think it will kill most of the article discussion, as I know I am not the only one who chooses not to be part of the Facebook phenomenon.

 

I wish the Daily Herald luck and I miss my online friends from that site.  Who knows, once I go to a more up to date operating system, I may try to get back on the forum boards… however… if comments to articles are to be done by Facebook, they will NOT be done by Dr. Rent.

The Future of HazMat Response in Wausau?

Every now and then I attend city council and committee meetings not because there is something on the agenda near and dear to my heart… sometimes I attend just to get a pulse for what is going on.  (Okay, and sometimes I attend for entertainment value.)  The agenda for Monday evening’s Wausau Public Health and Safety Committee looked like it would give me a good mix of items.  They were going to discuss with the owner of Malarkey’s their concerns now that this popular downtown bar has 125 points assessed against their liquor license.  They quickly passed ordinances for firearms in reaction toWisconsin’s conceal carry law and those ordinances already needed to be tweaked, and there was going to be a discussion ofWausau’s HazMat contract with the state. 

 

Of course, there were some other things that really made the meeting interesting that I may very well discuss in future blog posts, including two people turned down for bartending licenses (one because they had outstanding felony charges but were not convictions yet, so they disputed license denial on the “innocent until proven guilty” concept; and another who was guilty of some felony arrests, but more than 10 years ago and was disputing his denial on the “how old most those charges be before I have served my time” argument).  NOTE:  On my rental applications, I ask about arrests and I ask about evictions.  An arrest or conviction does not automatically mean I will turn you down, neither does an eviction.  I need to know the situation to determine the risk factors involved… but whenever an applicant looks at those questions and responds with the words… “Here’s the thing….” – I can almost guarantee “the rest of the story” isn’t going to help their case.  The same was true last night.

 

The other was someone who had come to the meeting hoping for some ordinances on quiet hours.  Apparently, he lives in a lower rental and the tenant in the upper unit plays their TV loud and is noisy in general after 10 PM so this person cannot sleep.  He has called the police a number of times.. however Chief Hardel reported that when officers responded, the noise level was not unreasonable.

 

In spite of those entertaining issues, the discussion that I found most interesting was the HazMat discussion.  Now keep in mind, I have not done any research on this issue so I really can’t go in depth on how HazMat calls have been handled in the past.  Also, I didn’t realize until the discussion was almost over that this item would be blog-worthy, so I did not take any notes.  I am going 100% off of my memory of what was discussed, so if I am getting something wrong, please leave a comment on this blog and tell me.

 

Up until now, the state had regional HazMat teams all over the state.  Instead of dedicated teams, these teams would be based with various fire departments.  These departments would then buy equipment to handle HazMat (which stands for Hazardous Material by the way) emergencies, and have personnel trained and certified to respond to situations within their region.  Needless to say, this created some fairly significant expenses for those departments.  However, those departments would be compensated by the state for this additional capability.  The Wausau Fire Department is currently receiving just under $100,000 per year from the state to be the regional HazMat response team.

 

Because I have not seen any news reports in recent years about Hazardous Material emergencies that have not been able to be handled with the available resources, I have to assume that this system that has been in place for many years seemed to be working just fine.  However, government in general has never been a strong believer in my personal philosophy of “if it works, don’t f_______ with it”.

 

The State ofWisconsinis completely changing how they set up their HazMat response teams.  They are going to have Level 1 response teams, which can pretty much respond to anything including nuclear and weapons of mass destruction.  You then have Level 2 response teams who are fairly similar to the current regional response teams except they will not be able to respond to nuclear issues.  Finally, there will be Level 3 response teams who are basically able to handle small issues, or at least secure the scene until a Level 2 or Level 1 can get there.

 

Under this new program, the State has submitted a draft contract toWausauto become a Level 2 response team, and would basically serve an 11 county area.  The problem is, that the state wants the Wausau Fire Department to cover an area larger than the one they cover now… and they want them to do this for about $73,000.

 

So, by the end of this year, the City ofWausauhas a choice when it comes to a HazMat response team…

 

First,Wausaucan accept the contract and become a Level 2 state HazMat team and receive $73,000 from the State for doing so.  The problem is, that this is a gamble.  Depending on what services are needed, these funds may not cover the expenses needed.  Actually, based on my understanding of the conversation, it will NOT coverWausau’s expenses.  For example, the state will only pay for a 7-person team to be deployed to an emergency.  However,Wausau’s Fire Chief says that for many responses, a crew of 12-14 is needed to ensure the safety of all who respond.  The Chief states he cannot in good conscience (and therefore will not) send 7 people when that is all the state will pay for when he knows more people are needed for a proper and safe response.  Because this is an 11 county area, a dozen ofWausau’s firefighters could be over an hour away.  So, in addition to the expense of the HazMat response, additionalWausaufirefighters may need to be called in to ensure thatWausaucould handle a major structure fire here in city limits.

 

Basically, choice one is take the state up in their offer.  This puts $73,000 intoWausau’s Fire Department budget… but if the actual expenses of being a Level 2 team exceed this, thenWausau’s taxpayers have essentially picked up part of the check for HazMat coverage for this 11-county area.

 

Second,Wausaucan keep its HazMat team, but not sign the contract with the state.  We already have the equipment (although it does need to be maintained and periodically to be replaced).  However, there is a cost involved in training and certification. Wausauwould then continue to have HazMat coverage for any emergency that happened in the City ofWausau(and probably the greater metro area whereWausauhas mutual aid agreements), but our HazMat team would be OUR HazMat team.  The down-side, the department loses $73,000 from the State, which is money I assume they were budgeting on receiving.

 

The final option… Wausau decides that based on budget issues, that HazMat coverage is not going be something provided by the Wausau Fire Department and if there is a HazMat issue in the greater Wausau area, we will need to wait for response from HazMat teams in either the Eau Claire area, or the Appleton/Oshkosh area.

 

Personally, I really don’t care for any of these options.  I don’t mind paying taxes for the services provided by the fire department to me… but I am not a big fan of paying taxes so my fire department can go handle emergencies hours away.  I am not a big fan of the possible local budget problem having local HazMat capabilities that are not part of the state program… and I am not a fan of not having any type of HazMat capabilities at all.

 

It will be interesting which way our city leaders decide to go…

Can a Landlord Keep your Earnest Money?

When you look at my consistency in posting blog entries, you pretty much can see the consistency of my life as late.  I was doing really well with regular blog posts, 2 to 3 per week.  Then here goes another stretch for nearly a month without one.

 

A lot has been going on the World ‘o Rent, both professionally and personally.  But, like a lot of other people out there, I am fighting the battles one day at a time.  Every evening, when the day comes to an end, it is a small victory and every morning when the alarm clock goes off, a new battle begins.

 

There of course has been excitement.  A few weeks ago I did an interview with the Wausau Daily Herald where I played the roll of “political pundit” as it related to theWausaumayor’s race.  I talked about the strengths and weaknesses of Mayor Tipple in his bid for re-election, and also discussed other likely candidates and then brought up some names we might also see as the race gets closer.  Being a regular in City Hall, I was worried a little bit about this because everyone likes reading about their strengths, but some people really don’t take criticism of their weaknesses very well.  I did catch some flak from two people regarding the article that came out over a Sunday while I was inOklahoma.  Because of internet issues, I was able to get multiple emails demanding apologies, but it was not until a day or two later where I could read the article to see what exactly I was supposed to apologize for.  So… a good time there was had by all.

 

Shortly after said trip toOklahoma, Mrs. Rent’s mother fell and broke her hip.  Needless to say, an injury like this does cause a great deal of stress to a loving family.  It doesn’t help much that Mrs. Rent’s mom is a retired nurse.  And, it is no secret that the people who make the absolute worst patients tend to be doctors and nurses.  However, to add a level of drama, her mom is also pretty much the glue that holds that family together.

 

But, enough about the drama ala Rent.  I was emailed a question about an earnest money earlier this week.  A landlord takes a $100 earnest money with every application, if you don’t pay the $100, they don’t process the application.  An applicant was approved for an apartment, but never signed the lease.  Instead, the applicant applied for a number of places and signed a lease somewhere else.  However, now they want their $100 back.  The landlord has told the applicant because they were approved, they don’t get the money back, the application even says this clearly.  The applicant is telling the landlord that earnest money is refundable and if they don’t get it back, they are going to file a small claims action for return of the money – doubled.

 

Did the applicant automatically forfeit their earnest money when they signed the lease elsewhere after being approved?  The answer….. sort of.

 

Money that a landlord gets prior to entering into a rental agreement is “Earnest Money” by definition.  And the tenant is correct that “Earnest Money” is refundable.  Some landlords charge non-refundable application fees.  However, by legal definition, if you get the money before signing the lease, it is refundable “Earnest Money” no matter what the landlord tries to call it.  The only exception to this are funds collected for “Credit Check Fees”.  “Credit Check Fees” are NOT refundable, and I will talk about those in a little bit.

 

Since the Earnest Money is refundable, when must aWisconsinlandlord refund it?

 

If the landlord rejects the application, or refuses to rent to the applicant, the Earnest Money must be refunded to the applicant.  If the applicant withdraws their rental application BEFORE they are approved (or, more accurately stated, before they are notified that they are approved), they get their Earnest Money back.  Finally, if the landlord does not approve the application within three business days, it is assumed inWisconsinlaw that the application is denied and the earnest money must be returned.  (The 3 business day guideline can be extended out to 21 calendar days if agreed to in writing.)

 

Something important to note… although a landlord has 21 days to return the security deposit to a tenant, that same 21-day rule does NOT apply to Earnest Money.  If the applicant is eligible to have their earnest money refunded, it must be refunded by the end of the next business day.

 

In our situation though, the applicant withdrew their application AFTER acceptance, so none of the situations above apply.

 

If we read farther into the regulation that covers Earnest Moneys (ATCP 134.05), if the applicant does enter into a lease agreement, the Earnest Money is still refundable.  It can either be applied toward the applicant’s (now tenant’s) security deposit, to their rent, or in some cases get directly refunded back to them.  Again, in our situation, the applicant never signed the lease.

 

The law then goes on to discuss what happens when an applicant is approved, but does not enter the rental agreement.  In those situations, the Earnest Money is NOT automatically forfeited to the landlord.  However, the landlord can withhold from the Earnest Money “an amount sufficient to compensate the landlord for actual costs and damages incurred because of the prospective tenant’s failure to enter into a rental agreement.”  This can include new costs to re-lease the property, more showings, more advertising, etc.  This can also include rent that the landlord lost because they pulled the unit off the market and could have rented it to someone else.  Of course, in order to add lost rent to the list of damages, the landlord does need to make a reasonable effort to re-rent the property.

 

So, in going back to our original question, did the applicant automatically forfeit their $100 Earnest Money when they backed out of signing a lease after their application was approved?  No.. they did not.  However, if the landlord feels that they suffered $100 in damages (and to be honest, that is a fairly easy number to justify), they can withhold the earnest money in compensation of those damages. 

 

What about this non-refundable Credit Check Fee that I had mentioned?  Well, first let me say that when this law was added to the books in 1999, it became (in my personal opinion), one of the top three most useless laws written – ever.

 

This is how it works.  If a landlord wants to pass on the expense of doing a credit check on the applicant to the applicant, they can do so if they follow some (what appear to be) simple steps.

 

First of all, the landlord can only charge for the actual cost of the credit report, not to exceed $20.00.  So, if the credit report costs $10, the landlord can only charge $10.  If the credit report costs $30, the landlord can only charge $20.

 

The applicant has to be made aware of this charge before hand.  That way, if they don’t want to apply to avoid paying the fee, they can.  Also, the applicant can avoid paying the fee by providing the landlord with a copy of their credit report that is less than 30 days old.  In the event the landlord gets a copy of the credit report from the applicant, they can still run their own to verify the information is still accurate, the landlord cannot charge for it though.

 

So far, this law seems reasonable…. Why is this on Dr. Rent’s list of useless laws?  Well… another requirement the landlord must follow in order to be able to charge a tenant for their credit report is that the landlord must provide the tenant with a copy of the report.  Which you are probably thinking makes sense, after all, if they paid up to $20 for it, why shouldn’t they be able to have a copy of it?

 

Well…. Because that is not the way credit reports work.  Credit reports are not easy to get, you have to contract with a provider and those providers will have a ton of requirements that are established by laws that they have to follow before you are even allowed to be their customer.

 

One of these requirements is that you, as the party getting the credit report, agree to keep that information confidential and to not share the contents of the credit report with anyone else besides you…. INCLUDING THE PERSON YOU RAN THE REPORT ON!!!  That’s right, if you give me written permission to run a credit report on you, I cannot tell you what that report says.  If you have ever been turned down for credit, you don’t get a copy of your report, you get a letter saying which report they used and who you can contact to get a copy.  (Of course, you can go to the website www.annualcreditreport.com and run a credit report on yourself once a year from each of the “big 3” credit reporting agencies as part of the FACTA laws.)

 

Now you see why this law is useless.  I can only charge an applicant a Credit Check Fee if I am willing to violate my contract with my credit report provider, which could make it impossible for me to run credit reports in the future.  It is like passing a law that says that you can only drive a car if it is red… and then outlawing red paint.

 

So.. there is a short review of how earnest moneys work inWisconsin.  If a landlord is charging any type of application fee that is not refundable (with the exception of up to $20 for a Credit Check Fee), you can tell thatWisconsinlandlord – YOU CAN’T DO THAT!

 

Concealed Carry Legal in Wisconsin in Two Weeks (but maybe not Wausau?)

As the classroom requirements for the concealed carry classes are being finalized, the City ofWausauis looking at how the ability for people to legally carry concealed weapons affects them.

 

The Public Health and Safety Committee addressed this issue last night at their meeting.  This first came up on their agenda a few months ago and a couple of people (myself included) showed up to comment on this item.  However, because so much of the actual new rule had not yet been finalized, the Committee thought it best to table the item until the specifics of the rule were more clear.  According to the minutes of September meeting when it was made clear that concealed carry would be on the October agenda, the Committee decided that their October meeting would be moved from the small conference room they normally have it to Council Chambers, as they expected a large turn out.

 

Well.. when it came to the concealed carry issue and the turnout, I was it.

 

The city attorney provided a complete and total list to the committee of all city-owned properties.  There was discussion concerning which properties would not allow weapons by statute (such as Council Chambers when it was being used as the municipal courtroom).  There was also discussion that certain city properties had to allow concealed carry by statute, including city-owned parking ramps, and residential rental properties owned by Community Development.  However, the majority of the discussion seemed to favor an outright prohibition on city property.

 

Being the only person there for that issue, I did ask to address the committee.  I told them I wasn’t going to talk about the liability issues or the constitutional law issues because to be honest, I am not experts in those issues.  Instead, I want to talk to the committee from a simple common sense point of view, where I feel quite qualified.

 

Although concealed carry is new toWisconsin, it is not new, 48 states already allow it in one form or another.  There is this vision that all of a sudden every man, woman and child is going to be “packing heat”, just out looking for a problem that they can solve.  That is simply not the case when looking at the other states where this is legal.  I asked how many on the committee had lived in… or better yet, visited a state outside ofWisconsinorIllinois?  When they were inTexasorMinnesota, did it occur to them that the person walking next to them on the sidewalk could have a .45 in a shoulder holster under their jacket or a snub-nose .32 in their purse?

 

I thought that this prohibition that the City was looking at enacting was little more than a solution looking for a problem.  I indicated that the majority of people aren’t going to go out and get a concealed carry permit.  And, even those that do aren’t going to carry every time they leave the house.  I did admit that there are some who want the ability to carry so that they can step in and be the hero if they witness a bad situation.. and I also admitted that those type of people do worry me a bit and there are some legitimate concerns about that scenario.  However, the vast majority of those who will be exercising concealed carry will be doing so for their own personal protection, and are not likely to pull out the gun except when they, themselves are in a situation where they must protect themselves.

 

The gun in the woman’s purse scenario is what I see as the probable most likely case of a person carrying a concealed weapon for personal protection.  Some on the Committee were worried when different areas in the building had different rules.  Go into city hall to pay your water bill, you are fine…. But go into city hall for a municipal court hearing to contest a parking ticket, and the gun can’t come in with you.  One of their reasons for a complete ban is to prevent this type of confusing situation.  However, I would hope that an aspect of the classes is to teach those with the permit where they may and may not carry, that way a person knows if they are going to municipal court, take the gun out of the purse.  I think the “confusion” argument is over-rated.

 

I explained that more confusion was likely to happen when the City went above and beyond the statutory restrictions.  After a while, once the “new gun smell” wears off, concealed carry will be second nature and although a woman will not forget that there is a sidearm safely tucked away in her purse, it will not be a big deal.  You could go to City Hall for a city council meeting and get to the door and see the No Firearms sign.  Okay… so now one of three things happens.  The person truly did forget the gun was in there and entered council chambers.  The person did not want to walk all the way back to their car to secure their gun and just walked through the doors to city hall with the gun figuring it wouldn’t be an issue, or they will walk back to the car and now you have cars parked all around city hall the night of a city council meeting, and some of those cars will very likely have weapons in them because they couldn’t be brought inside.

 

To me, having signs that restrict carrying when there normally wouldn’t be a sign would be much more confusing for those who have gone through the training.  If they didn’t expect to see the sign, now they have to make other arrangements.

 

The Committee did make a very valid point that sometimes at Committee and Council meetings, emotions can take over some issues and debates have been known to get heated.  The fear there is that by allowing the weapons, when a situation becomes heated and emotional, would someone remember in the heat of the moment the access they have to the firearm they have in their backpack or purse that they have been carrying for some time and would the heat of the moment present them with a temptation to pull it out?

 

In my opinion, that is a lot of what ifs.  And, of course, you are really not doing anything to prevent someone from bringing a firearm to the meeting, you are only posting a sign that makes it illegal to do so.  A number of cities have passed bans for talking on cell phones while driving, but I have personally seen that posting a sign and making it illegal alone doesn’t often stop anyone.

 

Another concern presented by Police Chief Hardel has a lot more credence.  His worry, in addition to those who might draw a weapon while in a heat of the moment emotional debate, is those who will carry a weapon for reasons other than personal protection.  And, I stated earlier in this blog, those that carry weapons for the purpose of being ready to step in when they witness a bad situation worry me.  Let’s say someone does pull a weapon at City Hall during a Council Meeting.  Council meetings do have (at least one) uniformed police officer for security.  If someone pulls a gun, that police officer needs to assess the threat and react.  If the only ones in the room with drawn weapons are the perpetrator and the police officer, the possible scenarios that the officer has to work through are limited.  However, all of a sudden another gun or two appears.  Are those guns from people supporting the perpetrator making them additional threats, or are they there to assist law enforcement?  And, while law enforcement will be concerned about things such as cross fire and innocent victims and have gone through training for situations such as this, the concealed carry classes probably don’t go through these type of situations, and a well meaning citizen could actually complicate an issue that a well trained officer could have taken control of by just talking with the perpetrator.

 

It’s a complicated issue.  However, we are adults and at some point law-abiding citizens need to be treated as such.  If we have taken the class and pass the background checks and gone through the steps to concealed carry, then we should be allowed to carry as a matter of principle.  The law addressed arrears where common sense determined concealed carry to be a bad idea.  To expand prohibitions beyond the state law starts to cross the common sense threshold.  Does the increased SENSE of security and safety members of the City Council and members of the Public Health and Safety Committee get with a total ban truly represent an ACTUAL increase in safety or security?

 

Although members of the Committee contacted otherWisconsincities to see what they were doing, no one on the Committee (that I am aware of, and yes I asked) contacted city halls in other states where concealed carry is already allowed.

 

Last night, the Committee voted to recommend a prohibition of weapons in City owned buildings.  However, they did not decide which city-owned buildings.  They will have another meeting Monday (October 24^th) to discuss and recommend which city buildings should and should not be subject to the weapons ban.  The City Council will address this issue on Tuesday, October 25^th.  If I am again the lone voice of common sense, I anticipate a vote favoring the ban by a fairly large majority.