Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/12/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 632
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned that the amendment had not
been formally moved. Additionally, she said that the
amendment was to SB 155, the Senate version of HB 222, and
HB 222's sponsor did not support it.
Number 641
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that he would not formally move
the amendment, as there apparently were not enough votes to
support it. He said that if the hearing on HB 222 were to
be continued on another day, he would bring the amendment
back before the committee, redrafted so that the format
conformed with HB 222.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee now had HB 222, as
amended by AMENDMENTS NO. 1 AND 2, before it.
Number 650
SHERRIE GOLL, representing the ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY,
commented that HB 222 was substantially similar to
landlord/tenant bills which had been before the legislature
for the last five years. She said that the landlord/tenant
law now in place had tried to balance the rights of
landlords and tenants. She expressed an opinion that HB 222
tipped the balance too far in favor of landlords. She said
that women, minorities, and low-income citizens were more
likely to be renters than other Alaskans; for that reason,
she said that the effects of HB 222 would disproportionately
fall on those groups of people.
MS. GOLL expressed her concern about HB 222's shortened
notice periods. She appreciated the bill's accompanying
fiscal note, to cover the cost of preparing a brochure
explaining the new landlord/tenant law. She commented that
in some instances, the bill was changing notice periods from
ten days to five days; in other instances, notice periods
were being decreased from ten days to 24 hours. She stated
that the bill would result in more evictions.
MS. GOLL agreed that there were bad tenants, but expressed
doubts that changing the landlord/tenant law would have any
impact on tenants who disregarded the law anyway. She said
that in most cases, landlords were able to protect
themselves by requiring references or deposits. She
applauded AMENDMENT NO. 2, saying that it made HB 222 more
balanced. She said that her organization supported the
mediation process.
MS. GOLL called attention to the section of HB 222
pertaining to a tenant who had been arrested for a crime.
She said that by shortening the notice period, eviction
proceedings would begin before the tenant was able to defend
him- or herself against the crime for which he or she was
arrested. And, if the tenant was convicted, she questioned
what purpose would be served by putting that person's family
out on the street.
MS. GOLL summarized by saying that, when dealing with the
landlord/tenant law, both parties needed to be respected.
She reiterated her belief that HB 222 went too far in
shifting the balance away from tenants and toward landlords.
TAPE 93-59, SIDE A
Number 000
ELLEN NORTHUP, DIRECTOR of THE GLORY HOLE homeless shelter
in Juneau, distributed a letter to the members of the
committee. She believed Americans were innocent until
proven guilty, and said that some of HB 222's provisions ran
counter to that tenet. However, she approved of many of the
provisions of the bill. She was aware that shortening the
notice period from ten days to five days was aimed at drug
dealers and prostitutes, but said that it would also hit
senior citizens whose social security checks were held up in
the mail.
MS. NORTHUP mentioned a current situation of which she was
aware, involving an elderly man who had lived in the same
apartment for about six years. The building was sold to
another owner, who implemented a new requirement of first
and last months' rent, plus a cleaning deposit. When the
man first moved into the building, she said, he only had to
pay his first month's rent. He was unable to pay for his
last month, plus his cleaning deposit and, therefore, was
evicted.
MS. NORTHUP stated that her primary objection to HB 222 was
its shortened notice periods. She suggested that landlords
ask prospective tenants if they knew how to clean a house.
Strange as it might seem, she said, some people had never
kept an apartment.
Number 135
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that tenants could only seek
assistance from the general relief program of the Division
of Public Assistance when they could present an eviction
notice. Therefore, she said, eviction notices were
sometimes given to tenants in order to benefit them. She
said that in most cases, landlords were understanding in the
situation of a welfare or social security check arriving
late.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed an opinion that landlords
required first and last months' rent, plus deposits as a
result of problems that had occurred due to the existing
landlord/tenant law. She noted that if tenants were given a
five-day notice period, and could not come up with rent
money within that time, then they would probably also be
unable to come up with the rent money in ten days.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that the intention of the
existing landlord/tenant law was to protect both parties.
However, she said that during the fifteen years that it had
been in effect, it had bent over backwards for tenants. She
said that the existing law had resulted in many people who
were unwilling to be landlords. She expressed an opinion
that the state needed to encourage landlords to provide
rental housing.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative James if she was aware
of a memorandum from Jack Chenoweth of the Legislative
Affairs Agency's Division of Legal Services, which suggested
that a particular amendment be made to HB 222.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she had seen the
memorandum, and felt that if the amendment was necessary,
then she would support including it. However, she said that
if the amendment was unnecessary, then she would rather not
include it.
Number 195
MS. HORETSKI mentioned that a House Judiciary Committee
substitute would need to be drafted anyway, due to the other
amendments that had been made. She noted that she had seen
Mr. Chenoweth's suggested amendment regarding court rule
references, but was as yet uncertain as to whether HB 222
made procedural or substantive changes.
Number 200
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she would like to hear
Ms. Horetski's legal opinion of Mr. Chenoweth's suggested
amendment.
Number 209
CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the committee hold HB 222 in
committee until the following Wednesday; in the meantime, he
said, a committee substitute could be drafted and Ms.
Horetski could research Mr. Chenoweth's concerns.
Number 219
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that sections 1 and 6 of
HB 222 would place additional requirements on police
departments, including notifying property-owners if someone
other than the property-owner was arrested, and aiding in
the eviction process. He wondered what sort of impact the
bill would have on the Alaska State Troopers and on local
police departments.
Number 234
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that there was a fiscal note
accompanying HB 222.
Number 238
LT. HARRIS commented that he supported the concept of
section 1 of HB 222, while recognizing that it would create
more work for the Troopers. He said that in most cases, it
would be easy to find out who owned a piece of property and
notify that person by letter. He said that in Anchorage and
Fairbanks, records were computerized, thereby speeding up
the notification process. In other areas of the state, he
said, finding out who owned a particular piece of property
would be more time-consuming. But, he said that
notification of property-owners was an important thing to
do.
LT. HARRIS indicated his understanding that eviction notices
were usually served by private process-servers, only asking
the police for assistance if certain problems arose. At
that time, he said, the police would provide assistance as
part of its routine work. He stated that the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) supported the concept of HB 222.
Number 273
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that it would be helpful to the
police to have the cooperation of a property-owner in these
instances. Additionally, police could use the opportunities
presented in HB 222 to point out the owner's
responsibilities toward bad tenants. He added that the
police's involvement stemming from HB 222 would not
necessarily be viewed as a problem.
Number 288
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked how a court would interpret
section 10 of HB 222, pertaining to a person's reputation in
the community.
Number 298
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that a person's reputation in the
community was a standard used in establishing the
credibility of a witness.
Number 311
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that HB 222 reduced a notice
period from 20 days to 24 hours, for breach of a rental
agreement. He asked if this would present due process
problems.
Number 325
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the 24-hour period
pertained not to non-payment of rent, but to situations in
which a rental unit was being damaged.
Number 335
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that he was referring to page
10, lines 8 and 9 of HB 222.
Number 344
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the section to which
Representative Nordlund was referring was where the
committee had inserted the word "substantially." The effect
of that section, she said, would give landlords an
opportunity to evict tenants before damage became worse.
She said that she had personal experiences in which property
she owned was being damaged by tenants, and all she could do
was to watch helplessly as the damage was perpetrated. She
stated that the 24-hour notice period did not apply to non-
payment of rent situations.
Number 361
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that a House Judiciary Committee
substitute for HB 222 would be drafted, with or without Mr.
Chenoweth's amendment, based on the outcome of Ms.
Horetski's research. He said that the bill would be back
before the committee on Wednesday.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|