OPEN SEASON ON SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS

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.