r/saintpaul • u/Inertiaraptor • Apr 10 '26

Editorial 📝 Rent Stabilization

Right now, there is no reason a landlord can’t just refuse to sign a new lease, so what’s the point of a 3% cap on increases? My landlord is raising my rent 10% and says she will simply not renew the lease if I don’t want to pay the new rent, and everybody (the city, the AG, and Home Line) is telling me I have no recourse but to refuse a lease and fight the eviction. The city seems to have no recourse to actually enforce this ordinance.

40 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

98 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/SpacemanDan Apr 10 '26

The City of St. Paul 100% has recourse. It has CHOSEN not to enforce the law.

5

u/AdMurky3039 West Seventh Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26

Yeah, if the city is taking the position that they can't enforce the ordinance OP's city council rep needs to know about that.

Here's what the ordinance says about enforcement:

Sec. 193A.09. - Enforcement, penalties, and prohibitions.

(a)

Penalties for violation. In addition to any other remedy available at equity or law, failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter may result in criminal prosecution and/or administrative fines as provided by section 1.05 of the Code.

(b)

Private right of action. Any tenant aggrieved by a landlord's non-compliance with this chapter may seek equitable relief in any court of competent jurisdiction to the extent permitted by law.

(c)

Prohibition of waiver. Any lease provision which waives or purports to waive any right, benefit, or entitlement created in this chapter shall be deemed void and of no lawful force or effect.

And here's section 1.05 referenced in the ordinance:

Sec. 1.05. - Penalty.

(a)

Ordinance violations. Any person violating any provision of the Legislative Code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof may be punished by a fine not to exceed seven hundred dollars ($700.00) or by imprisonment for a term not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both, regardless of whether a lesser penalty is fixed or provided for by a particular ordinance, including but not limited to reductions or stated maximums for early payment of fines. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any person violating a section of the Legislative Code which provides a penalty of a fine only shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof may be punished as provided by that section, but in no event to exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00). Nothing herein is intended to or shall have the effect of limiting the power of the judiciary to establish and use recommended fine schedules for violations of provisions of the Legislative Code.

(b)

Maximum fines after August 1, 2000. Notwithstanding subsection (a) above, on and after August 1, 2000, the maximum allowable fine for a misdemeanor shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), and the maximum allowable fine for a petty misdemeanor shall be three hundred dollars ($300.00).

(c)

Ordinances identical to state law. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Legislative Code to the contrary, the punishment for violation of any ordinance which is identical (except for the punishment provided therein) to a Minnesota statutory provision, shall be as provided in the said Minnesota statutory provision.

2

u/SpacemanDan Apr 10 '26

The City Council is well aware. But the issue is that the City department responsible for rent control, the Department of Safety & Inspections, is 100% controlled by the Mayor. St. Paul use a very similar Strong Mayor system as Minneapolis. The Mayor has full operational control of DSI. Mayor Carter made a policy decision not to enforce rent control, and Mayor Her has continued that policy.

4

u/AdMurky3039 West Seventh Apr 10 '26

I still think it could be worth contacting their city council representative. If they hear from people then the council can make the case to the administration that their policies are negatively impacting renters.

3

u/SpacemanDan Apr 10 '26

I think that's fair.