We don’t always agree with the folks over at the Daily Times. However, when they’re right we should be willing to admit it. Today’s op-ed regarding Salisbury’s rental policy is not only “dead on”, Mayor Jim Ireton should use it as a guide for formulating future policy.
There is a tremendous difference between operating a “boarding house” and putting a rental apartment over your garage. Why then, does the Salisbury city government insist on treating them the same?
Ireton should be going after boarding house operators and problem landlords with a vengeance. Homeowners, particularly those who occupy their own property, should be given more latitude in the city’s zoning code when it comes to renting out A room or putting a small apartment over a garage. Single family renters (and their landlords) should be treated no differently than homeowners.
Property owners, such as Virginia Campioni, should not be forced to spend precious dollars to defend themselves against charges that have no basis in fact. If they are, the city (therefore the taxpayers) should have to compensate them. Large landlords such as Richard Insley can look at such action as a cost of doing business. The single family homeowner who puts an apartment over their garage cannot.
To be fair, Ireton is not the chief culprit here. Bad legislation passed by past councils along with a former mayor who refused to enforce any law which hindered her slumlord pals makes it difficult for Ireton to enforce the law without being called to task for the likes of Ms. Campioni.
The answer is simple. Move enforcement against the SAPOA crowd while crafting legislation that works.
The Daily Times has shown its infamous prejudice on the news side of the building by describing Ireton’s attempts to force landlords to obey the law as a “crusade” or a “battle”. In fact, they are neither. Ireton’s approach appears well intended. The editorial side of the house has managed to give Ireton something to think about and hopefully a path toward positive action.
1 comment:
Yesterday's DT article said that the city actually had old documents fromt eh 70's to prove that the apartment was legal. If that's the case, the city should review its records more carefully. Hawever, when I saw a photo of that garage I thought that it is no place for someone to live. When homes have been turned into two, three and more "units" parking and other impactson those living in their properties legally haven't been considered either. If properties have been converted illegally they need to be returned to single-family. If they were done when it was legal and they can prove it, that is a different matter.
Post a Comment