.jpg)
Quietly playing out for the past year or so before the Salisbury Board of Housing Adjustments & Appeals and before the Wicomico County Circuit Court, have been numerous appeals of landlord exceptions to the four to two law.
The four to two law was supposed to be written to protect the single family neighborhoods of Salisbury from the ever encroaching rentals that were degrading the property values and quality of life there. Landlords who had lawfully existing rentals prior to the enactment of the four to two laws (the 12 months prior to December 16, 2002) could be granted exceptions to continue renting to either 3 or 4 unrelated people and continue operating as a non-conforming use.
Neighbors of these rentals had the right to file affidavits to object to these exceptions prior to them being granted. Many neighbors filed affidavits, many attended hearings before the City Board and a few appealed further to the Circuit Court for redress of their grievances.
One such case was decided today that should put every homeowner in the City in fear for their properties. It has been common knowledge that the City has turned a blind eye to enforcing the zoning codes against certain rentals, but today’s decision declares an open season on all these single family residential neighborhoods.
The Court heard a case and ruled today on a rental that the neighbors believed was unlawful from day one and even continues to this day to be over-occupied by 6 students. The landlord in question lived in this house and rented three rooms to fellow students during the first 5-7 months of 2002. It was not legal in the R-10 zone where this property is located, to be owner occupied and rent to 3 others. So this landlord and his property were unlawful. Further, once the landlord was forced to move out because of his unlawful existence, he used the property to store and park his vehicles while renting the house to at least 4 students. It is not lawful to subdivide the use of the property in this zone. If you rent a house to someone in the R-10 zone, they get to use the entire property, you cannot reserve part of it for your own private use. So throughout 2002 the landlord did not have a lawfully existing property, the key requirement to obtain an exception to the four to two law. The Board gave him the exception anyway.
The Court, when it reviewed the Board’s decision and the laws, could not do anything about it. The Court found that the laws, meant to protect the single family residential neighborhoods, were actually written in favor of the landlords. The burden of proof was on the neighbors to prove today that the landlord’s property was not lawfully existing in 2002. All that proof was in the hands of the landlord. There was no subpoena power for the neighbors to obtain that evidence. So there was an impossible burden for the neighbors to produce what they had no legal authority to obtain. This is a Due Process violation. That issue was not before the court.
The neighbors are free to file ethics complaints with the City, whose boards are stacked with people looking out for the interests of the landlords, and they are free to file lawsuits against the City for Due Process violations, but that is costly and time consuming.
So, we are stuck with laws that favor the landlords and leave no protection or enforcement for single family homeowners. Once again, the City can do as it pleases at the cost of the taxpaying homeowners, and because most people cannot afford to sue the City, they continue to get away with what they are doing.
You must remember this come election time: that our City drafts laws that do not protect us; that they spend our tax dollars preventing citizens from protecting their property rights; that citizens without the knowledge of legal violations and without the money to sue are helpless before them. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Vote NO to any more of this administration’s shenanigans at the expense of taxpayers.
The four to two law was supposed to be written to protect the single family neighborhoods of Salisbury from the ever encroaching rentals that were degrading the property values and quality of life there. Landlords who had lawfully existing rentals prior to the enactment of the four to two laws (the 12 months prior to December 16, 2002) could be granted exceptions to continue renting to either 3 or 4 unrelated people and continue operating as a non-conforming use.
Neighbors of these rentals had the right to file affidavits to object to these exceptions prior to them being granted. Many neighbors filed affidavits, many attended hearings before the City Board and a few appealed further to the Circuit Court for redress of their grievances.
One such case was decided today that should put every homeowner in the City in fear for their properties. It has been common knowledge that the City has turned a blind eye to enforcing the zoning codes against certain rentals, but today’s decision declares an open season on all these single family residential neighborhoods.
The Court heard a case and ruled today on a rental that the neighbors believed was unlawful from day one and even continues to this day to be over-occupied by 6 students. The landlord in question lived in this house and rented three rooms to fellow students during the first 5-7 months of 2002. It was not legal in the R-10 zone where this property is located, to be owner occupied and rent to 3 others. So this landlord and his property were unlawful. Further, once the landlord was forced to move out because of his unlawful existence, he used the property to store and park his vehicles while renting the house to at least 4 students. It is not lawful to subdivide the use of the property in this zone. If you rent a house to someone in the R-10 zone, they get to use the entire property, you cannot reserve part of it for your own private use. So throughout 2002 the landlord did not have a lawfully existing property, the key requirement to obtain an exception to the four to two law. The Board gave him the exception anyway.
The Court, when it reviewed the Board’s decision and the laws, could not do anything about it. The Court found that the laws, meant to protect the single family residential neighborhoods, were actually written in favor of the landlords. The burden of proof was on the neighbors to prove today that the landlord’s property was not lawfully existing in 2002. All that proof was in the hands of the landlord. There was no subpoena power for the neighbors to obtain that evidence. So there was an impossible burden for the neighbors to produce what they had no legal authority to obtain. This is a Due Process violation. That issue was not before the court.
The neighbors are free to file ethics complaints with the City, whose boards are stacked with people looking out for the interests of the landlords, and they are free to file lawsuits against the City for Due Process violations, but that is costly and time consuming.
So, we are stuck with laws that favor the landlords and leave no protection or enforcement for single family homeowners. Once again, the City can do as it pleases at the cost of the taxpaying homeowners, and because most people cannot afford to sue the City, they continue to get away with what they are doing.
You must remember this come election time: that our City drafts laws that do not protect us; that they spend our tax dollars preventing citizens from protecting their property rights; that citizens without the knowledge of legal violations and without the money to sue are helpless before them. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Vote NO to any more of this administration’s shenanigans at the expense of taxpayers.
15 comments:
Why do you think that Barrie appointed Richard Insley in the first place? What is the address of the property?
Who was the judge?
Once again, Joe, your Blog has disseminated information that The Daily Times refuses to address. The amount of rentals located within the city limits of Salisbury is astounding. The presence of low income rental units has drained this city’s resources for far too long. Fire, EMS, and the Police departments are constantly dealing with the trash living in theses rentals. Now keep in mind some are inhabited by low income, hard working families struggling to make ends meat, but for the most part we have low life drug addicts and drug dealers living there.
Richard Insley has to go. Paul Wilbur has to go. the only way it happens is if you get out and vote agaisnt the entrenched powers. I've been told that they aren't worried about the election because they have money and we don't. Well, it is time to put our money where our mouths are. I will be willing to donate at least $100, probably more if I get mad enough, to a fund to be devoted to supporting the candidate with the best chance of ousting the mayor (get rid of the mayor, and Wilbur can be fired). We need to be smart about deciding who that person is--it has to be someone who can appeal to a wide market, not just someone who will be written off as a reactionary. The right candidate, funded by all of us, can make this happen.
If this doesn't convince somebody to run for mayor, nothing will.
SAPOA RULES!
Joe's like a farmer.....out standing in his field! : )
One of the "anonymous" commenters has hit the nail on the head. Any legislation passed by the council is crafted by the city solicitor (Paul Wilbur). The city solicitor serves at the pleasure of the mayor, not the council. This was one of the amendments that I proposed when I served on council - that is, to have the city solicitor serve at the pleasure of both mayor and council.
The 4 to 2 legislation was passed during my term in office and I was a strong advocate for the preservation of single family neighborhoods. Unfortunately, it now seems that our ordinance, as crafted, was insufficient. A new council has to peruse the ruling of this judge and shore up this legislation.
HOLY COPASQUAT!
Am I reading this right? An attorney gets paid to writes sh*t law, then gets paid to win a case because the law he wrote is sh*t?
A complaint to the state bar or whatever in order???
The Four Horsemen:
Barrie, Insley, Maloney, Wilber
It wasn't the judge's fault--he was totally fair from my reading of this. He was just stuck enforcing a lousy law. Your city codes are being written by landlords! The fox is guarding the henhouse, and the mayor not only doesn't care, she thinks it is great. Insley is so biased, and so obviously biased, that there is no way for a taxpaying citizen to use the process that is supposed to be there to protect us. So they won this round, but they have not won the entire battle. We must dedicate ourselves to stopping this--not through yelling or screaming, but by galvanizing the citizenry. An election is getting ready to take place, and I can guarantee that Tilghman/Cathcart/Insley and their pals will use a smear campaign to stop any opponent. We are better than they are, so let's show it. Save a few bucks a week and let's buy some air time next Spring to expose what has been going on.
FF
I will donate money gladly to oust the current bunch of thieves . Just let us know where and when you need it.
I remember this case. I'm sick of college kids taking over every neighborhood in town. They have dorms, they have apartment complexes...what more do they want?
I know a group that circumvented the law by having the parents buy the home, and then a brother, sister, and two of their friends lived in the house. Parties till all hours, and trash everywhere.
The law needs to be fixed, NOW! The landlords need to be off code and compliance. They need to be held accountable.
Kim Taylor
He also gets paid to lose cases. i.e. Old Mall!
Like the auditor, and attorney, we don't need anymore "yes men." We need someone that is going to give good sound advice without slithering down the back alley.
If it offends somebody Tough "Caca."
Muchacho tiene Cajones?
Post a Comment