Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Friday, April 03, 2009

Comegys Favors Landlord Fee Increase

Buried in the back of this article from today's Daily Times, mayoral candidate Gary Comegys says "he cannot guarantee fees will not increase." He continues, "If you'll recall [in 2008] I worked with my colleagues to bring that [property tax increase] to 9 percent."

Even though rumors are being circulated, Jim Ireton, defends himself and is quoted as saying "I have never said I want to raise the landlord licensing fee."

Let's review:

Gary Comegys has raised taxes and fess and cannot guarantee he won't do so again.

Jim Ireton has no interest in raising taxes or fees.

The article also says "[Debbie] Campbell...is not trying to increase fees."

So there you have it. Did the Daily Times actually get it right for once? You wouldn't know it by reading the first part of the article where they actually lay out all the rumors, speak only of Jim Ireton, and make it seem like it's all about him. But if you actually read the whole thing and sift through the bull, Gary is clearly in favor of raising fees and taxes. Jim is not. Case closed.

I also found it interesting that the landlords now admit to trying to influence the vote of their tenants. And I quote:

"Following an example set forth by Richard Insley earlier this year, another landlord has drafted a letter to tenants requesting their vote go to Comegys, Boda and District 1 incumbent Shields."

In the letter, which we have posted before, the landlords claim the city has imposed a "renters tax" which is entirely untrue. Accordingly, landlords raised their rent by $25-$50 per month to cover this so-call tax which in fact is the $25 per year licensing fee. So they are making as much as $600 more to cover a $25 fee. Proof positive the landlords can be dishonest making it very probably that they are 100% behind the rumors being circulated. Why would they be behind it and support Comegys? Simple. If he raises fees and taxes even the slightest bit, they can jack up your rent a whole bunch and blame it on the city.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I just posted this comment on the Daily Slime website and I want you to see it too. In response to the rental owner who claimed Jim Ireton had his finger in her face:

I was also at the forum, and what is printed in the article is an outright lie. I was honestly concerned for Mr. Ireton's safety. The lady was screaming at him, and he was very calm and composed. I was standing within maybe about 20 - 30 feet of the incident. I mean, the lady WENT UP ON THE STAGE, and pulled him away from another conversation and just began screaming. My hand to God, Kris Adams is outright lying about the encounter. SHE was the instigator, and SHE looked like an absolute loon in the ordeal. I would urge anyone who would like to verify this fact to contact the S.U. Flyer and ask to speak to the reporter who was covering that forum. He was standing right there the whole time too.

Anonymous said...

RENTAL LICENSES OUGHT TO BE $500 PER UNIT...WHY ARE PEOPLE NAIVE?

Anonymous said...

I was reading some quotes by slumlord Donnie Williams in the rag this morning and was thinking what a credible person to get a quote from. NOT!

Maybe it is time to make his racial comments and documents appear. The ones where he got beligerent when some "undesireables" moved in next door to him. Can we make that happen?

Anonymous said...

So lets think about this one. The Rental License fee goes from $25 per month to $100 per month. That is barely a $6 dollar a month increase if it is passed on to the renters. OMG, they are going to have to file for bankruptcy and food stamps.

You can bet if there was a $75 dollar increase in the annual licensing fee the slumlords would take that opportunity to raise the rent $50 per month.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that you guys are cheering on Levying higher fees on an industry purely out of personal animosity. A very disturbing and dangerous precedant. This does not help Jim one bit.

Two Sentz said...

Try reading the article again, 1:16. You clearly missed something.