DUMMERSTON — As I have been a landlord in Brattleboro since 1968, I have been following the discussion stimulated by the proposal of the Tenants Union of Brattleboro (TUB). I also have read Brandie Starr's commentary.
I have several personal reactions.
It seems that Brandie's comments are an attempt to put a guilt trip on landlords as a group and to create an us-versus-them atmosphere between landlords and tenants.
In my over 50 years as a landlord, I have always believed that I was providing a service and viewed my tenants as my customers. Much like retailers view their customers, I want them to be satisfied and become a repeat or continuing customer.
Also, like a retailer, my product requires a substantial investment in money, time, and continuing care.
However, unlike a retailer, I cannot just show a bad customer/tenant the door.
Removing a tenant in Vermont is a very long, arduous, and expensive process that can lead to retaliation by the tenant resulting in hundreds if not thousands of dollars in damage.
* * *
I point this out because, as Brandie stated, real estate is an investment, and sometimes you make money and sometimes you lose. With that in mind, a landlord, like any other business person, wants to minimize his risk of loss.
In order to reduce the risk, I, like many others, require first- and last-month rent and a security deposit. I realize that this can be a lot of money for many folks, but this is one way to reduce the risk that we voluntarily assume.
I also have worked with people to allow them to pay the last month's rent over a period of time. However, if I - and, I suspect, many others - do not have the assurance that people will not apply their security deposit to their last month's rent, we will have to alter our vetting standards to minimize the risk of loss.
This will make it even more difficult for many people to secure safe and attractive housing.
* * *
In an attempt to solve the problem, I would like to support the comments made by Deedee Jones [Viewpoint, Sept. 23] and the innovative proposal put forth by George Carvill [Letters, this issue] with respect to the establishment of a rental loan fund supported by the town or another organization.
I am also very concerned with Brandie Starr's strong support of the TUB proposal. From watching the recent Selectboard meeting, it appeared that she had already made up her mind before the proposal was even presented.
As a governing member of the town, she should want to weigh the pros and cons and think about the unintended consequences of this proposal rather than advocating for it prior to its being properly vetted.
With that in mind and the impression that she cannot be impartial, I would respectfully request that she recuse herself from voting on this proposal.