[Lady Justice 40] - Lady Justice and the Landlords' Nightmare

by Robert Thornhill

  That made me feel better.

  We were having a brief meeting before the first day of the trial. The day the jury is selected.

  “We drew Judge Charles Parker,” Suzanne said. “The defense attorney for the city is Willard Krantz. We met in chambers earlier today. Willard and I both agreed that anyone who is either a landlord or a tenant should be excused from the jury. Obviously, the landlords would be on our side and the tenants would be rooting for the city. The judge agreed.”

  Suzanne looked at her watch. “We’d better get inside.”

  We had just been seated when the bailiff announced, “All rise for the Honorable Judge Charles Parker.”

  When we were seated, Judge Parker addressed the court. “Our purpose today is to select the jury for the trial. Due to the nature of case, we will be excusing anyone who is either a tenant or landlord. If you fall into one of these categories, you may be excused.”

  Out of the sixty or so people who had been empaneled, almost half of them rose and left the room.

  That being done, the judge explained the voir dire process to the remaining prospective jurors. He explained that the jurors who had just left were excused for cause, and that the attorneys for both the plaintiff and defense would be asking individual questions, and that more of them might be excused as the result of a preemptory challenge.

  The first twelve jurors were seated and the voir dire began.

  Suzanne approached the jury box. “Juror #1, let’s say you’re in the grocery store and you see someone slip an item under their coat and head for the door. Would you report this to someone in the store?”

  The juror, a man, thought for a moment. “Yes, I would. It’s just not right to steal. Every time someone takes something without paying, it costs not only the store, but the rest of us who pay a higher price to cover the loss.”

  Suzanne turned to the judge. “Juror #1 is acceptable to the plaintiff.”

  The judge made a note. “Please continue.”

  “Juror #5,” Suzanne said. “How about you? Would you report the theft?”

  “Probably not,” the woman replied. “First of all, I don’t like gettin’ into somebody else’s business. It might be a mother who has hungry kids at home and no money. Besides, the store is owned by a big corporation. They’ll never miss one little thing.”

  Suzanne turned to the judge. “The plaintiff would like to excuse Juror #5.”

  I could see what Suzanne was doing. It reminded me of the TV show, Bull. The main character is a professional jury consultant who helps select jurors sympathetic to his client’s cause.

  After the defense attorney quizzed several jurors, it was Suzanne’s turn again.

  “Juror #3, let me ask you a hypothetical question. If one month, you had unexpected expenses and were forced to choose between paying your doctor bill or your mortgage, which would you pay?”

  Without hesitation, he replied, “I’d pay my mortgage. I have to keep a roof over my family’s head. I’d work something out with the doctor.”

  “Judge, Juror #3 is acceptable to the plaintiff.” She faced the panel. “Juror #7, in that same scenario, which bill would you pay first?”

  “I’d have to pay my doc,” she replied. “I got arthritis in both knees and a bad ticker. I gotta have my meds.”

  “Judge, we’d like to excuse Juror #7.”

  When it was her turn again, Suzanne said, “Juror #9, let’s say you’re shopping for a new home. The realtor shows you exactly what you’ve been looking for, but just before you make an offer, you discover that the next-door neighbor has a lengthy criminal record. Would this affect your decision to buy the house?”

  “It absolutely would. It’s hard enough in today’s society to steer clear of criminals. I certainly wouldn’t want to expose my family to the criminal element by moving in next door.”

  “Judge, Juror #9 is acceptable to the plaintiff. Juror #12, in that same scenario, would knowing that someone living right next door had a criminal record prevent you from buying the house of your dreams?”

  “It depends,” he said. “I’d look at the neighbor’s house and if it’s tidy and well kept, probably not. Just because some one has a record doesn’t necessarily mean they’re dangerous. I guess I’d be willing to give the person the benefit of the doubt.”

  “We’d like to excuse Juror #12, your Honor.”

  And so it went throughout the day. By four o’clock, we had our jury.

  CHAPTER 14

  Due to the publicity generated by me serving the complaint papers at the city council meeting, and the news media’s coverage of the aftermath, the court room was standing room only.

  Not surprisingly, the city was divided on the issue. Landlords were happy that someone in their group had taken a stand against the new ordinance, but tenants, especially members of KC Tenants, the grass roots organization that had spearheaded the resolution, were up in arms.

  The same group that had demonstrated outside city hall, voiced their displeasure on the courthouse steps.

  In fact, emotions were running so high that Judge Parker threatened to clear the courtroom. Once order had been restored, the Judge turned to Suzanne. “Ms. Romero, do you have an opening statement?”

  Suzanne rose from her chair. “I do Your Honor.”

  Stepping in front of the jury box, Suzanne began, “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, on December 12th of last year, the Kansas City City Council, on a twelve to one vote, passed the Tenant Bill of Rights. It was subsequently signed into law by the mayor.

  “I have no doubt that this new ordinance was passed with good intentions, but since its passage, unforeseen consequences have arisen that have jeopardized not only the landlords of our city who are providing housing for our citizens, but also for the very tenants they were hoping to protect.

  “In the days ahead, you will hear testimony from both landlords and tenants, sharing how the new ordinance has affected their lives.

  “Specifically, you will hear testimony from Darrin Wilcox, the plaintiff in this lawsuit against the city. You will hear first-hand how this well-intentioned legislation has wreaked havoc in this man’s previously stable life, and has driven him to the brink of bankruptcy.

  “I am confident that after you hear all the pertinent facts, you will be convinced that Mr. Wilcox’ claim against the city is justified. Thank you.”

  The judge turned to Willard Krantz. “Mr. Krantz, do you have an opening statement?”

  “I do,” Krantz said, rising. “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the city of Kansas City is in the midst of a housing crisis. Forty-six percent of Kansas City residents are renters, and forty-four percent of renters are cost-burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent.

  “Compounding this problem is the fact that more than 23,000 Kansas City tenants have one or more severe housing conditions such as inoperable plumbing, water leaks, mold and roaches, to name just a few. In some low-income neighborhoods, as many as 42 percent of renters said they had unresolved maintenance issues.

  “The net result of these problems is that an average of 38 evictions are filed every day in Jackson County, and an average of 25 evictions are granted. In a year’s time, that means nearly 9,000 renter families are at risk of homelessness.

  “For families who find themselves in such circumstances, securing safe, habitable housing is next to impossible. Due to the stigma of eviction or a criminal record, whether deserved or not, landlords simply do not rent to tenants who have suffered misfortune in their past lives.

  “For many years, landlords have not been able to discriminate against tenants based on race, religion, nation of origin, gender, or gender identity. The Tenant Bill of Rights adds to this list and bars discrimination against prospective tenants solely because of a prior arrest, conviction or eviction.

  “The new measure also gives renters protection from retaliation by landlords if they complain about code violations or try to organize a tenant’s union.

&nbs
p; “During the trial, you will hear testimony from citizens who have been victimized by this housing crisis and hear how the newly passed Tenant Bill of Rights has helped them secure safe and habitable housing.

  “It goes without saying that anytime something new is introduced, there will be a period of readjustment required. Nevertheless, when you have heard all the testimony in this case, I have no doubt you will agree that the Tenant Bill of Rights has impacted the lives of many Kansas City citizens in a positive way. Thank you.”

  When Krantz was seated, the judge turned to Suzanne. “Ms. Romero, are you ready to call your first witness?”

  “Yes, Your Honor. The plaintiff calls Professor Abe Goldberg.”

  An older gentleman who looked like he could have been the brother of Albert Einstein, ambled to the witness stand.

  After he was sworn in, Suzanne said, “Professor Goldberg, what academic degrees do you hold and what is your occupation?”

  “I have Doctorates in Sociology and Urban Studies and I teach at the University of Missouri – Kansas City.”

  For the next fifteen minutes, Suzanne established Goldberg’s credentials as an expert.

  “Professor Goldberg, you heard Mr. Krantz’ opening remarks. What is your professional opinion of the information he presented?”

  “As far as his assessment of the problem,” Goldberg replied, “he is right on. There is unquestioningly a shortage of low-income housing in Kansas City. Furthermore, I am well aware of the deplorable conditions that exist in some rental properties. I’ve seen them myself.

  “Although I agree with his assessment of the housing problems in Kansas City, I cannot support his solution to these issues.”

  “Are you referring to the Tenant Bill of Rights?”

  “I am.”

  “Could you be more specific?”

  “First of all, we’re talking about two separate and distinct issues. Let’s start with the habitability issue. During the open debates leading up to the passage of this legislation, many tenants told of the horrible condition of their units and their pleas to the landlord that have gone unanswered. This is, of course, unacceptable.

  “Unfortunately, the answer to this problem is not contained in the new legislation. Yes, yes, I know. There is a provision that gives the tenants the right to organize and be protected against retaliation by the landlord, but if these recalcitrant owners aren’t cowed by the city, I seriously doubt the tenants themselves will effect any change.”

  “And why is that?”

  “You see, there is already legislation in place to address the habitability problem. In August of 2018, the Healthy Homes initiative was approved by 56% of Kansas City voters. This initiative gave Kansas City Health Inspectors the authority to investigate complaints of poor or hazardous conditions in rental housing, including mold, roaches and all the other things Mr. Krantz alluded to in his opening remarks.

  “The system is funded by a $20 per unit annual fee from landlords, due when they register their properties with the city. If a detected problem still exists after an initial inspection, the landlord would pay a $150 re-inspection fee. Subsequent inspections would cost $100.

  “With this legislation, health inspectors in conjunction with city code inspectors have the means to completely shut down properties that landlords will not maintain in habitable condition. And yet, the problem persists.”

  “Why is that?”

  “For the city, it’s a no-win, damned if you do --- damned if you don’t scenario. Say we’re looking at a property with 120 residents living in substandard conditions which the landlord will not correct. If the city elects to shut down the complex, suddenly there are 120 people looking for low-income housing in a market where very little exists. Many of those folks would be homeless. So, rather than put these folks on the street, the city fines the landlord, no repairs are made, and life goes on.

  “Nothing in the new Tenant Bill of Rights addresses this problem.”

  “So what’s the solution?”

  Goldberg smiled. “That’s the question, isn’t it? The obvious answer is more low-income public housing, but even that is fraught with problems.

  “Take the Wayne Miner Housing Project for example. In 1960, two towers and 74 town houses were built to house 738 low-income families. Even though there was a housing shortage, during its thirty-year existence, it was never more that 60% occupied. By the 1980's unsanitary conditions, maintenance and security problems, and low occupancy forced the abandonment of two of the 10-story towers and the closing of the top floors of the other three. Vandalism and crime were so prevalent that in less than thirty years, the government made the decision to demolish the complex rather than try to maintain it. The property was destroyed by the very people it was built to serve.”

  I knew exactly what Goldberg was talking about. During my years on the force, Ox and I made many calls to the city’s housing projects. The hallways and stairs smelled of urine and feces and were littered with trash. Walls were covered with graffiti. It wasn’t a pretty sight.

  “Professor Goldberg,” Suzanne continued, “you said there were two issues. What is the second one?”

  “The second one has to do with the rights of tenants versus the rights of landlords. Mr. Krantz said that 46% of the city’s residents are tenants. Who, exactly, are the people who are making these rental properties available to almost half of Kansas City? Who are these landlords? Undoubtedly, there are big corporations that own multiple properties, there are absentee, out-of-town owners, but by far, most of the units are owned by an individual who has one to ten properties.

  “Most of these landlords purchased their rentals as an investment which they planned to hold for an extended period of time, and to eventually pay off the mortgage and have the rental income to supplement their retirement. Because the properties are an investment in their future, it only makes sense that they maintain the property in good condition. They do that over time by carefully selecting their tenants.

  “They know, either by personal experience or through education, that one bad tenant can virtually destroy a property and eat away an entire year’s profit.

  “Every landlord also knows that there are fair housing laws preventing him from discriminating against a potential tenant based on gender, religion, national origin and so on. These are fair and reasonable laws.

  “Adding people with a history of evictions, prior arrests and convictions as a protected class --- not so much.”

  “How so?”

  “It’s a matter of statistics. A person with one or more evictions has a much higher possibility of being evicted again compared to a person with no evictions. According to the National Institute of Justice, almost 44 percent of those recently released from prison return before the end of their first year out. About 68 percent were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years, and by year nine that number reaches 83 percent.

  “Let’s face it, to a landlord determined to protect his investment, a person with a history of evictions or a criminal record is a ticking time bomb. But now, with this new ordinance, a landlord cannot deny a person based on either of these.”

  “What do you see happening if this new ordinance is enforced?”

  “For the average landlord, it may only take one instance where a tenant he would normally not have selected, wrecks his property. After going through the agony and expense of an eviction, the lost rent and the costly repairs, he may simply decide that owning rental property is no longer practical. He decides to get out and sells his unit to another landlord who isn’t as concerned about the maintenance of the property. Now we have compounded the first of our issues. More landlords who don’t maintain their property. It’s a vicious circle, and this Tenant Bill of Rights only exacerbates the problem.

  “Right now, there are 800 abandoned properties in Kansas City that are waiting to be demolished once the city comes up with the funds. I have no doubt
that many of those derelicts were rental properties destroyed by tenants. Rather than pay the thousands to rehab the properties and go through the process all over again, the landlords just walked away. With this new ordinance, expect even more of that.”

  “Thank you, Professor Goldberg.”

  The judge turned to Krantz. “Cross, Mr. Krantz?”

  “Yes, Judge,” Krantz replied, standing. “Professor Goldberg, based on your testimony, you seem to have a bias toward the landlords of the city.”

  “Quite the contrary,” Goldberg replied, “I’m simply stating probabilities based on statistics. That’s not bias. That’s just reality.”

  “I understand what you’re saying, Professor, but using those same statistics, what about the person that has one eviction but never has another? You stated that 44% of those released from prison return before the end of the first year. What about the 56% who don’t?

  “Unfortunately, these are the people who cannot find habitable housing because of their past history. The Tenant Bill of Rights gives these people a second chance.”

  “Indeed it does,” Goldberg replied, “but at the same time it forces the city’s landlords to play a game of Russian Roulette. Will the tenant with a checkered past be one of the those who will sin no more or will the poor landlord be stuck with one of the repeat offenders? I agree that finding suitable housing for people with questionable backgrounds is a problem. My position is that putting the burden on individual landlords is not the solution.”

  “Then what is the solution?”

  “The only answer is more public housing. Our society has created the circumstances that have brought these unfortunate souls to this point in their life. It only makes sense that the burden of assisting them be shared by society as a whole rather than foisting it upon one group of people.”

  Krantz could see he was not getting anywhere with the Professor. “I have nothing further for this witness, Your Honor.”

  “Ms. Romero, you may call your next witness.”

  “The plaintiff calls Milo Bridges.”