Although Judge Davis recommended this particular case go back to this Board for reconsideration, Nancy Thomas lost once again against a Landlord not even present to defend his own case.
Yesterday this meeting was held in which the Landlord should have lost his Non Conforming 4-2 Use because he went from a 4 person rental to a one person rental for two years. After one year, should a Landlord choose to lower the occupancy below his exemption amount, the property is supposed to lose its non conforming use and revert to 4-2 conforming use permenantly.
Cindy McDonald represented the City and put up a good fight, arguing the wording of the law in which the Board ultimately sided with. Without getting technical about the 4-2 laws, this is a very difficult article to write and I don't want to create a forever long post about the technicalities. I'm not a Judge and although the 4-2 law was supposed to create a better residential marketplace for these neighborhoods, the laws are written in favor of the Landlords and obviously the City is planting their feet firmly into the ground and letting everyone know they're not budging, even though Judge Davis more or less asked them to reconsider.
Like Congress, perhaps with a change throughout the City Leadership and Boards, things might go back to the way the laws were intended to be. That, of course, is up to the Citizens/Voters.
My strong suggestion to you would be, contact Neighborhood Services immediately when you see a Landlord reducing the tenants in your neighborhood. Make sure your letter is recorded.
McDonald was the one who argued in that Stu Leer case, I believe. It ends differently in court where the rule of law is upheld. not disregarded.
ReplyDeleteLet's hope it goes to the Circuit Court, again, for real justice.
ReplyDeleteHow come the City of Salisbury always gives the landlord free legal service in these cases???
ReplyDeleteThat board is loaded with landlords and FOB's -- this should be appealled in Court, just like Mr. Leer did.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this the house on Pennsylvania Avenue where that SU lacrosse player was one of the roomers last spring?
ReplyDeleteAnother "moment to remember" when Barrie or Bubba runs for mayor next year
ReplyDeleteHow much are the legal services that the City provides for the landlords and for the appeals from Mr. Leer's cases costing the City? Why don't they landlords handle their own legal needs at their expense?
ReplyDeleteYes, home of one of the SU LAXers, who did extensive damage to area homes on a drunken spree (not a first time for him, either!)
ReplyDeleteThe laws are written to support those who will profit off them.
And Gary the Barrie helped! Neither one of them should ever hold public office again. They are the enemy of good, hard-working people and the pals of the profit makers.
This should be appealed, but that will cost lots of money that retired people living in these neighborhoods don't have. That's what this administration counts on. If you want to start a legal fund to help fight this, I'm sure Joe would put you in touch with Mrs. Thomas, the Camden Association or the lawyer who argued this case for her.
ReplyDeleteThis decision is absurd. Bob Gladden, to his credit, saw that the City's position is BS and voted to deny the rental rights. Two other members of the Board seemed to want to do that but felt they were bound by the City Attorney's statement even though the attorney for Ms. Thomas made it look ridiculous. Of course Insley was on the landlord's side.
ReplyDelete"My strong suggestion to you would be, contact Neighborhood Services immediately when you see a Landlord reducing the tenants in your neighborhood."
ReplyDeleteWhy bother when this is what happens every time?
"Let's hope it goes to the Circuit Court, again, for real justice."
ReplyDelete"this should be appealled in Court, just like Mr. Leer did."
Kudos to him, but not everyone can afford the cost or act as their own attorney like he can.
Let's hope that the Camden Neighborhood Association and other single family neighborhoods will support an appeal financially because the first time it wnet to the Circuit Court "Judge Davis more or less asked them to reconsider."
i think the facial expressions of all the people sitting around the perimeter of that room pretty much sum up the whole crappy mess of the way this city is run.
ReplyDeleteOf course Insley is on the landlord side because he is a slumlord himself!
ReplyDeleteRICHARD INSLEY [SLUM LORD] IS ON THAT PANEL??
ReplyDeleteHere's the City's legal position in a nutshell:
ReplyDeleteHeads - landlords win;
Tails -resident homeowners lose.
Not only is he on the panel he is the CHAIRMAN, remember that the charter says there cannot be TWO of the same ilk on a board, and yet there are TWO landlords. But its okay cuz Barrie said so.
ReplyDeleteBottome line: The 4-2 was written by Paul Wilber (FOB) in such a way as to not be enforced against the landlords (FOBs) and passed by a rubber stamp Dream Team (FOBs). Why is anyone surprised by this? Perhaps next year, if the citizens get smart, they will elect a decent mayor and council that will:
ReplyDelete1. Get rid of Wilber and other FOBs.
2. Re-write and pass legislation to take the place of all the stuff with which Wilber and BPT screwed the taxpayers.
Richard Insley should NOT be on that board, annd Barrie Tilghman should be held responsible for placing him there. They don't even pretend to have any objectivity at all! A landlord should be on the board (note the use of the singular), but certainly not a guy who has publically proclaimed his anti-neighborhood views so adamantly. It is absolutely absurd. This board should be embarassed. A vote for Comegys is a vote for a continuation of this farce.
ReplyDelete"Cindy McDonald represented the City and put up a good fight"
ReplyDeleteHOW COULD SHE POSSIBLLY LOSE WITH THAT BOARD????
Cindy Mac used their tried and true argument that the law was ambiguous. Of course, her boss wrote the law. What is so ambiguous about "the occupancy may continue as a nonconforming use." Oh that's right, this was a SAPOA landlord and they didn't want him to lose his non-conforming use.
ReplyDeleteI understand the meaning behind 4-2 and the goal of cutting out the riff raff, BUT----
ReplyDelete4 TO 2 IS ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!
In essence, the city of Salisbury is requiring landlords to ask their soon to be tenants if they are related to one another (or to simply assume) and it is 100% against the law for those landlords to base their decision to rent on the answer to that question.
Is John Pick going to do the jail time for the landlords that get caught breaking the law? Is Barrie Tilghman going to pay the $10,000 fine?
I don't understand this city thinking that their local laws can override federal laws. Federal fair housing states clearly you cannot discriminate against people because of their familial status. PERIOD! You can't NOT rent to people because they are unrelated.
If you've been discriminated against because Salisbury thinks its okay to discriminate, contact:
MARYLAND
Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc.
2217 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
410-243-4400 FAX: 410-243-1342
E-mail: rdoran@bni-maryland.org
Website: www.bni-maryland.org
Executive Director: Richard Doran
To learn more about Federal Fair Housing, go to:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/housing_coverage.htm
And if the city wants to combat the issues with late night parties, brothels, or whatever else it is trying to prevent, how about some tighter regulations on the landlords? Hold them responsible when they don't have a clause in their lease regarding action against the tenants for illegal or disruptive activity. Make the landlord pay every time a tenant has the police visit their rentals. You'll see these neighborhoods clean up faster that way, and it will be in a legal way. Hold the landlords accountable for the tenants they allow in their rentals. Its my opinion that the court system in Maryland is EXTREMELY easy to use for a landlord, and if a landlord can't take the time to figure that out, hire a management company or just a manager to do it.
And on a side note, that link to Baltimore Neighborhoods Inc. has resources for Maryland Leases and a guide book to tenant laws. They are the best resource I have ever found regarding rental laws and should be every landlord and tenants bible. They only cost about $15 total and they will tell you the best and legal way to respond to almost any situation that can come up in any landlord/tenant relationship.
Angela, the City isn't asking the landlords to find out anything. In fact, not one, repeat, NOT ONE rental has had the family definition applied to it and NOT ONE group of 3 or 4 unrelated people has come forward asking to be recognized as a family. In the last hearing, the City's attorney argued that the family definition did not apply to all these rental houses under the 4 to 2 law. They never did explain why the family definition was in the middle of this law or how or why it couldn't possibly apply. Neither did they say under what circumstances the family definition would apply. Simply put, they're not enforcing anything under the 4 to 2 law unless it concerns houses owned by people from out of town or non-SAPOA members. There's a good class-action lawsuit for all those outsiders who were shut down under the same laws that let all the SAPOA houses slide.
ReplyDeletewatch out for those legal fees from Wilber/McDonald
ReplyDeleteOMG 7:48, let me cut and paste a message I have received from John Pick. I'd really love to hear what John would have to say in response to what you've said. It seems to me there is almost no difference between the federal and local definition of "family". I never responded to this email from him because it just seemed pointless at the time. I find it very hard to believe that there has been a single case against a landlord or the city yet for discrimination based on 4-2. Shame on you Salisbury! Can't wait to see the class action suit posted in the paper and on the blogs.
ReplyDeleteFrom: jpick@ci.salisbury.md.us
Subject: RE: 4 to 2
Date: July 17, 2008 5:57:30 PM EDT
Angie - The attorney, who is filling in for the City Attorney while he is on vacation, has responded by saying that, generally, provisions in zoning codes limiting the number of unrelated individuals that can reside in a single-family residential zone have been upheld in the courts. In the cases she has reviewed, the limitation is accomplished through the definition of "family," as has been in done in our code. The courts have generally approved of this approach and she is unaware of this type of classification being condemned by federal law. I hope that this proves helpful. John