"I have read the various ignorant comments on this blog directed at landlords and Richard Insley in particular. Here is a news flash for you judgemental quick studies who have exposed yourselves as having no real understanding of legitimate business practices. Get a life. Get over your wealth envy.. Richard Insley is entitled to his perspective which he has earned through years of hard work. No tenant is forced to move into his properties. No tenant is forced to sign his lease. We live in a free market. There is plenty of housing competition in this town. Due to the competition, it behooves no landlord to provide substandard properties or price gouge. In addition, landlords pay 70% of the taxes in this city but have no vote and therefore have no voice. Mr. Insley would be a fool not to encourage his tenants to vote against candidates who seek unnecessary legislation that victimize them and penalize his industry. Debbie Campbell and Jim Ireton certainly have no problems misleading the students into thinking that each has the students' best interests at heart. Everyone else knows the first item on their mutual agenda is to revisit 4-2 in order to kick the kids out of the neighborhoods.
Hey Joe, you're the maverick reporter for the city, why haven't you reported that rental properties in the city of Salisbury are now 98% code compliant? It's a matter of public record and it is excellent news. Surely you've noted the improvement in the housing stock since Neighborhood Services was created. Hey Joe, we are in a recession and Salisbury has a huge crime problem, why haven't you exposed the $84,000.00 of wasted tax dollars spent by Campbell and Cohen since their arrival to the city council? This horrific tax waste accumulated due to their cavalier misuse of the city staff to mandate inane and unnecessary research of items such as zoning issues that occurred in 1957. Tax payer money has been spent in order to fulfill their personal agendas to find a legal precedent to overturn the current 4-2. It's a matter of public record. Seems to me that money could have been used to bolster the struggling police department and fight the crime that is victimizing all citizens of Salisbury including students who regularly get jumped on city streets.
It is very interesting to note that it is illegal for landlords to practice discrimination, yet our elected officials have given themselves carte-blanche to pass discriminating legislation.. I know their theory is: "If you get the students out of the neighborhoods, single families are going to buy up all the rental properties. Homeownership will improve the neighborhood because homeowners will take pride in their property." Great theory, but Landlords have to feed their families, so someone has to rent their properties. Section 8 may be less money but it is guaranteed income. Beware the law of unintended consequences. Unnecessary and unfriendly legislation in all likelihood may cause conditions in Salisbury Neighborhoods to get worse and not better.
There are ways for landlords and neighborhoods to co-exist in a world of mutual respect. Many Landlords actually run an ethical business. Many landlords' kids attend school with your kids. Many Landlords care deeply about the City of Salisbury, its now and its future. Many Landlords work consistently in conjunction with the University and police department to make the city a better place to live. I suggest you blog participants attempt to solve problems in a responsible way instead of name calling and vilifying others. What have you name callers actually done to help your city? Get a clue before casting stones."
25 comments:
If they want a vote, let 'em move to town. What, no decent housing? Wonder why?
Well, well. A quick trip to SDAT will show that Richard Insley just bought another house on North Blvd. Is he thinking that after the election he'll be able to convert it to a boarding house? That street was very stable with a nice mix of owners and renters until the last few years when a few poorly run rental properties drove several long-time owners from their homes. Debbie Campbell is a nationally recognized housing expert. She has worked for neighborhoods,owners, renters, and businesses. Ask yourself why people like Richard don't want Debbie Campbell reelected. That says everything about why we should all get out and support her.
Please! Insley has a right to make a living, but HE SHOULD NOT BE ON THE HOUSING BOARD. END OF DISCUSSION! It is damn easy to be code compliant when INSLEY DECIDES IF YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE. Give me a huge friggin' break! Any politician who thinks Insley can honestly and objectively determine whether houses are in compliance with current zoning laws ought to look at the record of that zoning board. How many times did they find in favor of the landlords? Every time.
Joe, this smear piece has glaring errors, one of which came directly out of Insley's mouth at a meeting.
Have this person post an itemized list of that $84,000 allegedly "wasted" by Campbell and Cohen. There's likely a good story behind that too.
Inquiring minds want to know.
If Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen wasted $84,000 of tax money that should be exposed. I do not agree with waste, no matter who does it. However, that said, it may just have been the price of doing business-as they say. Let us not forget what they have saved the taxpayers from their indefatigue-able efforts at trying to get to the bottom of what exactly is going on in this city; despite the status-quo's attempt to block their every step. If there had not been so many attempts to thwart their efforts, perhaps so much money would not have been
spent.
I do clearly remember them finding several million dollars in the budget that seemed to have gotten lost in the poor accounting practices. I think that just offset the 84000. Also, despite all the stonewalling by some of their peers, and others in the city government, they have repeatedly stood up for fiscal responsibility--time and time again. The city government and the council has been in shambles long before Mrs. Cohen came on board. Mrs. Tilghman, some of her colleagues have seen fit to spend our money frivolously, and some are still trying to do it in this economy. I for one am in favor of getting rid of those who want to govern with handshakes behind closed doors with backroom deals. Get rid of the ones who spend uncontrollably without any accountability. Put back the line item budget. Get a council president who doesn't try to impede on our constitutional rights. Get rid of the pork and the fat as far as employees and council members who collect a check, but do not earn it. This goes for personell that is not needed (assistant to the assistant)and people who are on the city dime that continue to gouge us. As 9:57 said, if you want to vote, then move out of the county and back into town.
Nalagirl
Well said Richard!
Home ownership is the way to revive this city and put more money in the pockets of its citizens. I bought the house that I was renting 11 years ago through Salisbury Neighborhood Housing. At that time, I was paying $525 a month for rent (a bargin nowadays). After buying the home, my mortgage payment is $300 a month, a savings of $225 a month! If I was still paying rent today, it likely be $800 to $900 a month, so I am saving even more money today. Not to mention that that the value of my home has doubled in the 11 years, and the tax write off of the interest every year.
The point of all that is to show how owning a home could help all these people who are barely getting by every month paying rent. Home owners would have more disposable income, tax savings, pride of ownership, and equity built up over the years. Instead we have tenants who really don't care about their neighborhood, extremely high rents, crime, and larger homes being divided up into smaller apartments. People stay in a rental until they can't afford to pay rent anymore, then they move to another rental and repeat the cycle. There is no stability in the neighborhoods. Insley has done nothing to help the people of Salisbury, just line his pockets. Maybe he should make some money by selling some of his rentals to the renters and thus helping to increase home ownership. He would make money by cashing in on the equity of his properties.
The University needs to provide housing for the students, not the city. I'm an SU alumni, and I feel the University hasn't done enough to provide housing for the students.
Joe:
Apparently you did not see this BS for what it is -- another effort by Barrie to slam her (and Bubba's) opposition.
anonymous 11:22, I saw it for exactly what it is. YOU now have the opportunity to fight back.
This is what I mean by the fact that I do NOT always agree with what is being Posted. However, YOU have the opportunity to rebut the message and stop acting like I'm stupid.
Now, let's see if YOU can do something more with it, instead of bashing me?
This had to be written by either Barrie Tilghman or Richard Insley or by one of the students the landlords are plotting 2007 Revisited with.
We've heard these lies before.
didn't the mare waste some money on poor legal counsel with some of her lawsuits?
The 4-2 legislation (signed by Gary Comegys and Dream Team members, remember) has to be revisited, taking all of the players into account, including city, landlords, and tenants.
Campbell and others have proposed that a tenant board be created to air problems, including safety, crime, rental practices, security deposit theft, etc. It's a board that Insley, Maloney, et al, don't want to see.
She also wants to investigate the possibility of having a student representative on Council to give the University and its student population a front-row seat to the Council and to encourage better understanding and improve input on matters affecting the student population. She wants to create a more level playing field for all.
Remember the ordinance for a 90 day jail sentence and fines for noise? One that doesn't rely on actual decibel readings, but just a subjective call, relying only the ears of an SPD officer? Campbell and Cohen didn't support it, and pointed to local and state ordinances already in place that were fair and just, but just weren't being well enforced. The Camden Neighborhood Association didn't support it, either, and Tim Spies spoke out to the council against its passage. Comegys pushed for it. The Chief of Police lied when he brought it before the Council when he said that the Camden Neighborhood Association supported it, having been told by Spies the day before that it wasn't supported. And the Chief and Comegys said that they had to get it passed before the students came back for the new semester. Shanie Shields supported it, after "doing some research on the internet", her final assessment being that she "saw no glaring infatractionals" (sic)that would prohibit its passage. She got "no response from the ACLU" for whatever it was she asked them. (They're probably still puzzling over the definition of "infatractional").
The bringing up of 4-2 is a campaign ploy of the Comegys/Insely/Maloney/SAPOA/Tilghman crowd. It's devised to bring a division (again) between students and residents, just as in 2007. It's another one of the evil rabbits they have yet to pull out of their well-worn hat to get Gary Comegys in the mayor's chair, appoint yet another lackey to the Council and keep business as usual in Salisbury, which will mean no more aggressive crime prevention strategies, no further protections for renters and more profits for SAPOA members at the expense of those renters.
It's rumored that the letter posted came from a Salisbury University Student Government Association officer with landlord ties. If this is the case, the SGA needs to get a handle on it, and its position made clear. Failing to do so will result in a setback of all the work this organization has done to smooth the way to improved relations between student and resident communities.
Obviously written by someone with a financial motivation.
this sounds like something Rick Jr. wrote to protect his daddy.....pathedic family of losers!
This sounds like its coming from SAPOA's newest puppet who just ascended to a position of power in student government at SU. Your arguments are full of holes:
"Due to the competition, it behooves no landlord to provide substandard properties or price gouge." -- Unless a lot of those landlords are not being forced to comply with the Codes and then they can get away with not making needed repairs and save that money and increase their profit margin.
"In addition, landlords pay 70% of the taxes in this city but have no vote and therefore have no voice." Maybe, maybe not. Where do you get this figure from? Also, from the number of politician they have bought and the number of laws they have shot holes through to the detriment of the homeowners, I'd say the landlords have a much bigger voice than the homeowners.
"Mr. Insley would be a fool not to encourage his tenants to vote against candidates who seek unnecessary legislation that victimize them and penalize his industry." Let's take this one in two parts. Yes, Insley would be a fool not to try to get people elected who will serve his interests. The "unnecessary legislation" and "victimize and penalize his industry" are nonsense. It takes a long time to draft and pass legislation. It doesn't happen unless it's necessary. That 4 to 2 law was desperate necessary against an industry that was running amok in the City. Even so, through purchased politicians, the landlords managed to get the 4 to 2 law gutted. It is completely uneforceable to protect the single-family neighborhoods and protects landlords. See Judge Donald Davis' opinion on the Doug Church case. So I don't know what the landlords are complaining about, it's as if 4 to 2 never existed. Also, for any out of town parents out there who bought houses for their kids and their roommates and were promptly shut down, apparently the only time 4 to 2 is enforced is against out of town homeowners, never against SAPOA members. Can you say class-action lawsuit for failure to properly and equally enforce the law?
"Debbie Campbell and Jim Ireton certainly have no problems misleading the students into thinking that each has the students' best interests at heart." Keep trying the same old tactic, it doesn't work. The students were duped in the last municipal election into believing Tim Spies (the only candidate trying to help the students) was actually evil incarnate. Then the candidate they were tricked into voting for (Comegys) over the summer said, "let's get this noise ordinance passed before the students get back." That was only 2 years ago and a large number of those tricked students are still around and have since learned how they were made fools of by the landlords. Debbie Campbell and Jim Ireton both want to make Salisbury safer for students to live in and improve City / University relations. At least Ireton that I know of, has walked the dangerous streets with groups of students to see where they're getting attacked, mugged, beaten, robbed, so that he knows which areas to target for cleanup when he's elected Mayor. The students are smarter than you give them credit for and you've already played that card in the last election, it's not going to work a second time.
"Everyone else knows the first item on their mutual agenda is to revisit 4-2 in order to kick the kids out of the neighborhoods." Nope, it's not on either of their agendas, which are indeed separate. Code enforcement to reduce crime is number one on their agendas. Why does cleaning up the neighborhoods to reduce crime on students scare the landlords so much? Think about it.
"[R]ental properties in the city of Salisbury are now 98% code compliant?" Under who's code? The one that is selectively enforced?
"Surely you've noted the improvement in the housing stock since Neighborhood Services was created." That's not what students are saying on their social networking pages. Rental stock has now gone from over 70% in the city with all the new illegal, unregistered rentals to closer to 80% rental.
"the $84,000.00 of wasted tax dollars spent by Campbell and Cohen since their arrival to the city council? This horrific tax waste accumulated due to their cavalier misuse of the city staff to mandate inane and unnecessary research of items such as zoning issues that occurred in 1957." Campbell and Cohen do their own research unless they can't get access to the information because the Mayor has put a gag order on letting them have access to information. So if they've "wasted" money, I would look to the Mayor and why she's deliberately block just these two council members from having access to government documents and why everything now has to go through the City Attorney's office to pad the legal fees he's already getting. I'd say your major money waster in government is Mayor Barrie Tilghman.
"Tax payer money has been spent in order to fulfill their personal agendas to find a legal precedent to overturn the current 4-2." So which is it? The landlords say they hate this law but it only serves to protect them. Then their puppet in SU government orders it be repealed. You guys are talking out of both sides of your faces. Just pretend the 4 to 2 law no longer exists since it's been completely gutted by the landlords and is unenforceable to protect homeowners and find a new red herring. It's over and done with.
"Seems to me that money could have been used to bolster the struggling police department and fight the crime that is victimizing all citizens of Salisbury including students who regularly get jumped on city streets." That's exactly what Campbell and Cohen have been trying to accomplish, get the other part of the raises for the cops that were promised but that Comegys was instrumental in blocking. You sound really confused with your information. Could be who ever spoon fed you gave you only part of the information.
"It is very interesting to note that it is illegal for landlords to practice discrimination, yet our elected officials have given themselves carte-blanche to pass discriminating legislation." Oh they do it all the time, refusing to rent to families because students will pay more. I know this for a fact because I was not only told by a family that they were being told they couldn't rent a particular house because it was reserved for students, but I also called that same landlord, and asked about renting it for my family. They would not let me look at the house. When I confronted them about federal fair housing laws, then they stopped and wanted to know who I was. Furthermore, the 4 to 2 law does not discriminate, it tries to limit occupancy in a house. You know, you can't have 9 people living in a 3 bedroom house, that type of thing.
I could go on, but I'm becoming bored with addressing your ignorance.
Can you say...blowing smoke up your a$$ article
Or how about, yeah it is rain that you feel on your head.
There is not proper rental competition because I think most of the landlords (especially those who rent to students) are the same as Insley. My current roomate's old place and the place before that were crap holes and he was paying more for them than the place he is in now (which is a student run rental...aka the student owns the house and rents the extra rooms.) The house he is in now is nicer, bigger, and he pays less for rent. Why? A good landlord who takes pride in the home she owns.
I think landlords should take pride in ever house they own, not just the one they live in.
There's nothing discriminatory about 4 to 2. There is nothing in the law about students, or any other group for that matter. The law isn't unique to Salisbury.
This is an oldie but a goodie of landlords who seek to profit from exploiting others and not complying with the law.
Talk about beating a dead horse.
You are either a liar or woefully ignorant/misled about the law or just into the proverbial abuse of animals.
Richard Insley;s plan: sling mud, support a message of change (which actually means get rid of someone who thinks independantly and replace them with a rubber stamp to go alnog with Comegys and Smith). In other words he wants us to elect Muir Boda. That way things can remian more the same than ever. When Debbie Campbell was elected the positive change actually began. She has watched out for everyone: owners, tenants, businesses, police, fire, public works, and sanity in government. Let's get her the help she needs to win this election. As well as she has functioned in the face of adversity, based on experience I can tell you that if she is working with other people who know that they too work for the citizens rather than special interest groups we will see dignity and integrity restored to city government. I've volunteered and contributed. Get on board!
Nice try....
Thanks to BOTH Section 8 housing and the lack of adequate student housing, the average working class family is faced with disproportionately high rents.Housing costs should not exceed 20-25% of ones income but many houses in Salisbury rent for $900 and up,and not all of them are in suitably safe and quiet neighborhoods. Why? Because 4 different students or someone with rent vouchers can easily swing that,most of the rest of us find it difficult. At the last house I rented in Salisbury I was "replaced" at the end of my lease by a tenant on a Section 8 waiting list and the rent increased by $150 a month,contrary to your idea that "section 8 is less money". Sure the landlord gets more money because the feds have deeper pockets but what happens to the neighborhoods in the process? Quality of life and property values suffer.After that, homeowners who can afford to sell out and move away do so,and then you have neighborhoods disintegrate.
And 520 you are right on!The only renters being discriminated against in Salisbury are traditional working class 2-parent families with kids.
This pos "author" did not sign a name, therefore is not credible.
Well why has the mayor waived many code compliance fines against him? He's no better than a homeowner scum bucket.
Sounds like it was written by TJ Blowme
Yup there is a poor elderly blackman that lives I think on second street that has gotten $450 in fines for his house. This poor old guy was up on a ladder up to the attic on his 2 story home trying to cap his shingles because he can't afford to pay for someone to do it.
Why doesn't code and compliance help that man get a grant from neighnorhood housing? WTF? If you ain't nobody that's the way you are treated, we have a lot of work to do here people.
If the landlords don't like? Tough, let them sell out at affordable prices so people can afford to be homeowners instead of rentors. Great interest rates out there too. Give them pride of ownership instead of the shaft.
If Salisbury is 70% rentals then rentals should be supporting 70% of the budget. Too bad you can't tar and feather people anymore.
Insley is on the board??? isnt that a conflict of intrest if he can decide compliance of current code and makes them???? Yeah landlords are people too but so are we it needs to be fair on repairs and other necessities that need to be addressed in a house especially older homes. My electric bill for one month was over 500. just me and my girlfriend are to pay this. It is because 1 we have no other place to stay in the price range and no repairs to the hvac system, holes in the house, lack of siding, no insulation and nothing is being done. They would rather dump money into a POS next door that should be condemmed and has half of the side missing. Thats where my rent money goes despite my complaints i get the run arround. Slumlords need a harsh reality check as they live in their nice houses and treat their tenants like crap. We shouldnt have any sympathy on slumlords, screw them maybe the lack of having a decent house for themselves or that nice fat rent payment every month will make them change their ways.
" Chriso12385 said...
Insley is on the board??? isnt that a conflict of intrest if he can decide compliance of current code and makes them???? "
Insley is not only ON the board, he's the PRESIDENT of the board. He's been on the board for at least ten years, in addition to another member that is ALSO a landlord, despite the fact that the regulations call for a maximum of one landlord to serve. Barrie Tilghman nominated him to continue, Comegys, Dunn, Cathcart and Shields voted to keep him on, saying that the second landlord wasn't really a landlord because he did it in addition to having a "real" job. Debbie Campbell made vocal notice of the conflict of interest and rule violation, but, yet again, hers was the voice in the wilderness.
Insley, in two election cycles (this one and 2007) sent his infamous letter to tenants and got a guest commentary of over 800 words in the Times and a long letter to the editor in the Flyer to spread his message. Go back on the Flyer or Times issues and look at either. See how similar they are in content to the letter in this post? Same specious arguments, same "poor me, I'm just trying to make it better for the stuuudents" line.
Insley wants what's good for Insley, and what's good for everyone else only if it's good for Insley, and that isn't often.
So, maybe it's time to clean some house? Gary Comegys and Shanie Shields aren't going to do it. Choose someone in this election who will.
Post a Comment