This blog first broke the news about the rampage and subsequent surrender into custody of two Salisbury University lacrosse players last week. And, now, we can report that this story “has legs” as they say.
Zachery Krissoff, one of the perpetrators of that malicious destruction spree, apparently resides at the notorious rooming house at 430 Pennsylvania Avenue in the Camden neighborhood, or did so until very recently. That property is owned and rented by Mr. & Ms. William Jones, who reside at 162 Old Wharf Road, in Ocean City (zip-21842).
A couple years ago, Mr. Jones applied to have the property declared to be exempt from the City’s “4 to 2” law. His application was denied because the file did not contain the required affidavit about the property being occupied by more than 2 unrelated persons in the past. However, the Housing Appeals Board – which is chaired by a landlord named Richard Insley – ruled that Mr. Jones had actually filed an affidavit and, because it had been “lost” by the City, he could file another one. On the basis of that second affidavit, the Housing Board also held that the property was exempt, so that up to 4 unrelated persons could live there.
At its hearing, the Board was made aware that, when the City inspected the property the inspector made the notation “occupied by single person for 2 years.” In addition, the Board received affidavits by neighborhood residents that the home had been occupied by only one resident for a significant period. If that is so, then the home should not be exempted from the 4 to 2 law.
On December 21, 2007 the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, in Case No. C07-0080, held that the Board should have sent the case back to the City’s compliance official, Tom Stevenson, “to consider the merits of the application, together with all other relevant information, including the occupancy affidavit of Mr. Jones and other affidavits of the neighbors … disputing Mr. Jones’ affidavit.” In that court case, the City Attorney tried to have the Court uphold the Housing Board’s ruling – in essence, providing free legal service for the owner-landlord (Mr. and Ms. Jones) and against a number of City homeowners who live in that neighborhood.
Subsequently, despite the evidence, including the notation made by the City’s inspector about occupancy for 2 years by a single person, Mr. Stevenson has ruled that the home at 430 Pennsylvania Avenue “does qualify for the occupancy exemption” from the 4 to 2 law. His decision letter of March 3, 2008 does not discuss why he disregarded the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, an appeal from his decision means going back to that Board run by Richard Insley, which will again rule for the landlord, so that the only real chance for justice will be to once again appeal the ruling by that Board to the Circuit Court. And the City will probably again pay the City Attorney’s fees to argue for the benefit of the landlord and against the neighborhood residents.
Do you recall a recent Daily Times article bemoaning the 4 to 2 law because 3 veterans were unable to live together in a single-family neighborhood? And do you think that there will be any coverage in that newspaper about the residency at 430 Pennsylvania Avenue of a (former-?) SU lacrosse player named Zachary Krissoff?
Joe:
ReplyDeleteSomeone should tell Krissoff's attorney that the "I'm responsible" ploy still works well here despite being overused by Barrie Tilghman.
What is now a problem in the Camden area and on the opposite side of the SU campus – arrogant students whose parents pay for them to live in homes in the single family neighborhoods – is about to spread elsewhere in the City (and County, too). Soon there will be a huge parking garage for the students at the corner of Bateman Street and Coulbourn Mill Road. It will no longer be desirable or necessary for them to live within walking distance of the campus because of the limited parking there.
ReplyDeleteWhat goes around comes around. How's that for "Not in MY neighborhood" (this is directed at the politicos, not the residents)
ReplyDeleteI'm baffled by the University response to this. This incident is not our school...not our students...not us...THE HELL ITS NOT. Did we not just have vadalism on Pennsylvania Ave? Party after party in "The Zoo" that our police have to respond to? Let the students vandalize on campus...the crap would stop then!
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly why the mayor and Bubba need to go. They chose Richard Insley (head of SAPOA) to lead the board that decides these housing cases! They chose Wilber to charge exorbitant fees to defend the landlords in these cases, and they have instructed Stevenson to ignore OBVIOUS infractions. All those people who think the 4-2 laws were unnecessary should think again, and remember that one semester, the rental house could be occupied by 3 relatively quiet war vets, but the very next semester could be Animal House! THAT is why the 4-2 laws exist in an area (shall I remind everyone again) that is zoned residential, and was zoned that way when we bought our houses. I don't blame the university, and frankly don't really blame the students (they will do what you let them do), but I do blame the city leaders who refuse to enforce city laws.
ReplyDeleteThis event just destroyed any good the entire SU student body has done in the last 10 years.
ReplyDeleteDear Salisbury,
No matter how hard you bite. The students bite harder; what do they care, they wont be living here after four years. The student do not want to live near you, but Salisbury does not have enough student housing away from the neighborhoods. Build it and they will live there.
8:53 --
ReplyDeleteSorry, pal, but you are WRONG!
Many students want to live in the single-family neighborhoods in their own "house", and some parents can afford that and prefer that situation to a dorm or place like "the zoo."
That's why college towns across the country have implemented zoning occupancy limits for unrelated persons. But here SAPOA and the Tilghman administration along with Bubba Comegys have gutted the law, and they are using the services of the City Attorney for the benefit of landlords. 8:47 has made a very cogent comment on our situation.
I certainly agree with Anonj 8:47 who blames the city administration and the college administration. I said before that its time the GHO gets fired and we get a new University President in who can control its students and stop all this weekend partying by most of them. Also, how come they don't seem to have similarproblems on campus, like we get in town?
ReplyDeleteA. Goetz
The difference in the Pennsylvania Ave and Monticello Ave is the landlords. The Vets on Monticello Ave were removed for 2 reasons. The first being the violation of 4-2 when the landlord was made aware there were more than 2 living there. The second was they only listed 2 people on their rental application. In my opinion the landlord acted responsibly in this case once he was made aware of the situation.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone remember the infamous 422 West College ave house? Talk about a pain in my ass.
ReplyDeleteOne might ask the question, if the area surrounding the college was such a lovely place to live, why did Mike Dunn bail out of there right after the election? He works for the University and moved to get away from all of it. This is the same man that claimed to love Salisbury. Loved it all the way to the bank.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused as to what everyone expects Salisbury University to do to these students. They were already kicked out of school. School officials cannot stop an irresponsible rampage of vandalism, nor can they control student housing that isn't located on campus.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that students who live near SU have to act irresponsibily. I'm just saying that around a college campus, you have to expect students to live nearby. It saddens me to know that people have such a terrible view of SU students being that I'm a recent graduate, however I understand why those feelings exist, to an extent. What I would like for people to do is to blame the students at fault in this incident. Not their parents, not the school or anyone else. When college students get in trouble it is their responsibility, no one elses.
I would also like people to think of all the good things SU students bring to the community. The Big Event was a day in which SU students went to homes and business and helped with yardwork, cleaning gutters, etc. SU also hosted Relay for Life which raised around $90,000 for cancer research. So I just ask that in a time that it's so easy to point fingers and talk about how SU students are terrible, please remember that their actions are not a reflection of the entire SU student population.
It's interesting to note that Krissoff has a record for malicious destruction of propery over $500.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone remember the infamous 422 West College ave house? Talk about a pain in my ass.
11:43 AM
is that the property gayboi duggy chirch owns?
1215 your comment laments the same as the residents of Salisbury. We are well aware of what is going on in our community and applaud those students that take part in the community. The problem lies within the administrations of both the city and the university. Both tend to sweep things under the carpet that should not be swept.
ReplyDeleteACCOUNTABILITY. Lying Louise promised it, we've yet to see it.
I wonder if the Whites are the ones calling OCPD about parking complaints on Old Wharft Dr. during the summer. You know the cars park on the street so they can get to the beach. Bet they played a role in getting no parkig signs up on their street. And how do they like the junebugs. They may be getting a pay back.
ReplyDelete11:11 -
ReplyDeleteThat comment about those vets was to show how the Daily Slime used their situation to trash the 4 to 2 law; it was not directed at them or their landlord.
9:27 -
ReplyDeleteYou are partially wrong.... let me explain. The students (parents) buy those houses because they are cheap means to housing for 4+ years; the parents buy it and rent the rest of the rooms out and break even on the rent, then they sell it for a slightly higher price thus paying next to nothing for housing for thier child while they are in college.
And the reason why they dont want to live near you is that you will call the cops every time there are more than 10 people in the house. They would rather live in the Zoo filled with students and not bother the locals at all thus not having the cops show up.
If there are more parties in more locations the cops cant break them all up. When I was student we used to play games like this all the time with the cops. The town of Salisbury is either too stupid or filled with landlord crooks to truly fix the problem.
I guess the lesson here is to not move to a college town/area. Do not move to an area with a history of college antics and plead ignorance when complaining about noise, "I didnt realize what I was getting into." (no one could have forseen what these dudes did)
ReplyDeleteI realize many low income families (Salisbury Area) do not have a choice as to where the live. So my advice would be to get a better job/education move on etc... There is a world of opportunity outside that zipcode.
It is clear the university isnt going anywhere. The university generates too much revenue.
As long as there are 18 year olds looking for an inexpensive/reasonable college education more students will come and the college will continue to expand.
As long as children continue to go to college there will be drinking, sex, and noise.
On a side note I am curious as to what percentage of Wico criminals are comprised of Salisbury students versus everyone else. And of that percentage what is considered hardcore vs misdemeanor.
I am not a betting man but it is safe to assume Salisbury smells like roses in that comparison.
4 - 2 thing.
ReplyDeleteI understand their logic, but to me the more homes college students occupy the more potential for parties the places supply. Thus spreading the students over a broader range throughout the community. This promotes students moving into areas that were previously unoccupied (by students) communities
As long as Salisbury is still part of America, the constitution still applies to all who live here.
ReplyDeleteThere are (layers of) rules which govern behavior of residents, whatever their ages and whatever they do during the day, i.e. work, attend school, etc. Those rules, called laws, are supposed to be enforced by whatever law enforcement agency is responsible for that particular area of the country. On a college campus, it would be campus police. In a municipality such as SBY, it would be city police, county would be the Sheriff's officers. ETC.
When crimes occur off campus by a student, the college only has jurisdiction over that student's enrollment, but cannot throw the student in college jail...there isn't one.
After two minutes of websurfing and a quick Google query, this came up.
ReplyDeleteSalisbury is ranked the worst crime area in Maryland.
http://www.homesurfer.com/crimereports/view/crimereportlistranking.cfm?state=MD
Pretty Basic, but it is what it is. The whole point is that all the drugs and crime that goes on within Salisbury can hardly lay claim with SU kids.
So cleaning up the Salisbury students is probably not priorty one.
Here is one man's opinion-without tears....have some beer bongs, listen to Pearl Jam, enjoy the non-violent experience of a smooth water-pipe with tobacco hit, find a nice looking young girl to exercise with (just not in my rose bushes); but if you do to my home what is suggested here.....you will not need a lawyer-you will need a helicopter ride and an intensive care stay. As one of your loser commenters replied over and over like a lame Britney wannnabe-SERIOUSLY, Y'ALL.
ReplyDeleteJoe please refer people to your posts from November 30, 2007 and have the SPD question these two idiots about that night as well. Same exact M O tires slashed, windows broken, planters thrown thru someones window all in the same neighborhood where these morons live.
ReplyDeleteIn mho, Krissoff and that other fart who destroyed and did damaged to people's homes in the Camden area, should have their pants pulled down and given a good caning like the dude did in '94 in Singapaore. At 22 & 21 they should know better.
ReplyDeleteCatheterization with "c" size battery....sideways.
ReplyDeleteAlso look at the number of kids coming out of SU that are distributing narcotics, a few years back there were kids charged with committing armed robbery. SU students are starting to become part of the so called hard criminals. Its an increasing trend in the world. The youth is becoming more violent. Take a walk over in the "zoo" when SPD is in there trying to break up parties that are obviously violating the law.
ReplyDeleteUnderage drinking is hardly part of Salisbury's criminal element. Someone should remind the residents of Salisbury, MD that we are no longer in medieval times. Raping, pilaging, and armed robbery are frowned upon in this day and age.
ReplyDeleteIf they did the previous night in Nov. that means it wasn't other Salisbury students. So these actions are even less indicative of SU student behavior. What else can we pin on these two?
ReplyDeleteThese guys have demeaned SU to the point where 4 to 2 is the way to go, in spite of Comegys, Dunn, and Tilghman. Heck, throw Smith into the broth of greed and idiocy that has further emboldened these thugs. It is too bad because the majority of SU students are good kids. Can I be honest? These world-beaters should know that there are real bad asses out there beyond the boundaries of a lacrosse field. An old man named George Foreman would still whip their butts without drawing a breath. Get over it, boys, there is always someone meaner and crazier. Terrorizing elderly people is nothing to be proud of. Do you have grandparents? What would they say or do? Are you proud that you tossed a 2x4 through an elderly woman's window? What a couple of wusses. Get lost. Move away. Now.
ReplyDelete6:50 my man....I am giving you a standing ovation (and presenting you a laurel.....and hearty handshake). To quote Sublime......and daddy's got a new .45.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me, if these homes for student rental are in a "residential" zone, the owners are breaking "the zoning" codes.
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, renting out homes is NOT considered "commercial enterprise".
Isn't the rental business considered commercial?
Perhaps something can be done with this in mind.