SHOULD SALISBURY’S "SAFE STREETS" SCHEME BE RENAMED – OR REVISED?
From the public comments made during the meeting at Station 16 last night, it is apparent that the legislative package formulated by Jim Ireton (in collaboration with Council members Campbell and Cohen) is misleading in its nickname – "Safe Streets." The main thrust is anti-landlord, but the real result would be especially harmful for tenants.
It is now evident that, except for a small group of City residents, there is very little support by the general public for the proposals.
A particularly perceptive comment was made by someone (whose name I missed) wearing a bright green shirt who described himself as a homeowner in the City whose property has been frequently vandalized in a neighborhood ridden with drug dealers and crime. As he pointed out, the proposed legislation provides no real protection against that reality. He said that he was deceived by the "Safe Streets" label because it suggested that the meeting was being held to address the City’s soaring crime problem.
The proposed legislation should be completely redrafted if it is intended to fight and reduce crime. If that’s not done, then a name change is appropriate – it should be called something like "Anti-Affordable Housing & Excessive Rental Business Regulation."
But the best course of action may be simply to let the proposals slip into oblivion without any further ado and get down to proper and promptly instituted measures to fight and reduce crime. Appointing a permanent Chief of Police would be an important first step.
37 comments:
making the streets safe would be depriving some people of making an easy living. we know that's not going to happen.
I know most people don't like the truth, however , Cohen is right on target. They have gotten to the root of the problem , you can like it or not.
Now maybe we need to hire 20 more police officers , NOT.
Salisbury is nothing more that a New York Harlem 30 years ago , with more mexicans than in Harlem.
We have a serious problem with judges upholding the law in wicomico county
11:34-
The "problem" is obvious, but the Ireton-Campbell-Cohen "solution" is ridiculous. The "problem" will be made worse and spread all over town.
11:47
Though I think the package needs some serious change, including maybe scrapping the non-conforming use amortization, I'm not going to try to politicize it and say that it's all wrong like you have. It's pretty obvious that you either haven't actually read the proposal or just have a thing about Cohen, Campbell and Ireton, or both.
Safe Streets is what Annapolis called it and a year later, they have a 50% decrease in Type 1 crimes. And guess what? They have safer streets.
How did Campbell become "a nationally recognized expert on affordable housing" and by whom?
And we now have SAPOA's latest attempt at spin on the matter.
SOPOA cries they can't do anything about problem tenants - this bill gives them the power to break a lease and evict problem tenants. Apparently, they didn't mean it when they said they wanted to be able to do something about problem tenants.
Amortization is STATE LAW - if and when the state decides to enforce it, you certainly won't get 10 years to get into compliance.
Quite simply, this package of legislation gets to the root of the problem - the very, very small number of repeat offenders who are set free by the courts. This legislation lets the city take action and get them out of Salisbury.
But SAPOA might make a few hundred dollars less out of the millions they take out of this community each year because they can't rent to known drug dealers, so it's bad for Salisbury. Right.
When are people in this city going to STOP voting against their own economic interests? This isn't the feudal system - we don't have to do what the lords of the manor say.
I hear the fat lady warming up on this absurdity.
Campbell is a vice-president of a national non-profit company that finds funding for affordable housing projects, including rehab, new construction, etc. She's worked for the company for about ten years or so. She was also the first officer of Salisbury Neighborhood Housing Service, and was the main person to get that program going. SNHS continues to find mortgage money for first-time homebuyers, those in mortgage trouble with the banks because of job setbacks, etc., and also provides funding for home rehab, etc. to qualifying individuals, especially those of low income.
She recently was invited to and attended a weeklong high level Harvard University seminar on affordable housing.
She was named one of Maryland's Most Important Women (I might have the name wrong) a couple of years ago because of her efforts in the area of affordable housing. This award names a handful of outstanding women in the state every year, women named as those standing out for their contributions to the people of Maryland.
She's got the credentials and the smarts to use them to improve our community. If only the rest of the council were so accomplished and intelligent.
Landlords in Salisbury rake in a conservative $93 million a year. Yes, that's ninety-three million dollars a year. And much of it comes to them in cash.
With those sort of numbers it's not a suprise that they want to keep raking it in, even at the expense of neighborhood destruction and actually protecting criminals through stonewalling any effort to change.
Change is what we need. Let's have some, not the same "throw more police at it" that we've been living with.
12:40-
How much in taxes do landlords pay to the City and Wicomico County?
And who would provide housing for their tenants if they stopped doing so?
How about Louise Smith's proposal to have a curfew for ALL of Salisbury, something like nobody on the street between midnight and 6 a.m.?
How ever could such a thing be enforced? It would be a disaster on so many levels, including the court costs to the taxpayers when it was contested by the NAACP and others, who have deep pockets and lots of lawyers. It could cost us millions.
Louise needs to spend a night or two on Smith Street instead of driving her Mercedes down it with a police escort at two in the afternoon.
The mayor complains it's been 73 days and the City Council won't put it on the agenda. I'm not taking sides in that cat fight, but the mayor should understand, the city council doesn't have to ever put it on their agenda. That's the city council president's perogative. After reading the ordinance, I can understand at least one reason why the council may not be taking it up; the legislation has nothing to do with crime prevention. Like other posts have said, it just forces property owners to loose much of the value of their investments, without just compensation. It's a bad bill.
Landlords pay taxes on their properties, and it's on about 5000 of the 8000+ housing units in town. But a great many of those properties, especially the single houses in what some consider to be slums, were purchase years ago for under $20,000 and they've been paying the same tax amount or near it for all that time. At the same time, many of those properties generate a very highly disproportionate number of police and inspection calls, paid for, again, disproportionately, by those who pay much higher taxes on their properties. We, the rest of the taxpayers, are paying for the problems that the lesser landlords create, and that SAPOA, by default, support through failing to come to the plate to identify and change.
Cohen was pretty succinct when explaining that while it's presented in a package, not all of the components of it have to be passed as a bill. It would come to council for discussion of each of the components seperately, not as a whole. There are some parts of the proposal that have great merit.
Smith's refusal to let it come to council for discussion is really foolish. Once she gets it before council, it can be teased apart to take advantage of all of the good things about it, including the Landlord Bill of Rights, the Neighborhood Empowerment Act, etc.
Louise Smith's notion that it has to come before Planning and Zoning before it comes to council work session is absolutely false, as was noted last night by the City Attorney and Planning and Zoning head. It goes to council first, then it goes to P&Z for approval, then back to council for final approval. Smith didn't know what she was talking about when she made that statement, which seems to more and more often be the case with her.
This proposal has very good things in it. It deserves to be looked at by the full council.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, Salisbury!
As Cohen said last night, it's not a solution, but it's a start at finding a solution, using strategies that will take a bite out of some of the problem.
Most will not think that it's all good, but who can argue with empowering landlords to evict a known criminal still being a criminal before the city comes down on them as maintaining a nuisance house, or empowering tenants with the ability to rid their residences of criminals?
More people need to look at this legislation and really appreciate how much of it can be used for minimal cost and substantial benefit of everybody, including landlords, businesses and resident taxpayers.
12:59 --
Property assessments and taxes on rentals have soared during most of the past 2 decades (last couple years are an exception). Please provide actual amounts and not your misinformation.
BTW, many are not "in what some consider to be slums" unless that is how you see areas like Camden.
We don't need martial law, Louise. Come out of your ivory tower and get a grip.
12:59
Under $20,000? Try under $10,000 and figure the taxes out with that number.
Rental homes don't get any homestead tax credit -- and so pay the full amount, unlike owner-occupied residences. Landlords pay a huge share of the City taxes.
And how would the City be able to provide affordable housing without them?
Safe Streets:
let's there will be a local Sign Company that will commissioned to make the Street Signs...
because that is all we will be getting from this typical Election Year gimmick designed to give us the impression our local gov't is interested in doing something other than humiliate themselves
The mayor can tell landlords to evict problem tenants, but he should ask Judge Davis first. Davis almost always sides with the tenant. Davis makes it very difficult to evict a tenant. Why doesn't Ireton discuss with Davis how to rid the city of bad tenants.
12:55, you ever read the Council's Rules or whatever they call it?
I have and the old gal who heads up that council does so have to put it on an agenda.
So you got a rule breakin', gavel poundin' old lady in charge of that council and people wonder why nothing gets done?
She thinks she's the Queen of Salisbury or something.
Example:
604 Smith Street - 1500 Sq. Ft. frame house
M&L Properties, LLC (Maloney and Leer)
Assessment 2010: $20600
City & County tax: $346 per year
City only: $156 per year
How many calls for service from police and code compliance to this address? (Google Map streetview shows at least 4 city notices taped to the door. Just a couple of calls or citations or investigations completely blows the city tax payment - after that it's everybody else that pays.
"Excessive" Rental Business Regulation?
Hahahahah hooo ho ho ho haaaaa ha ha whoo hoo ah ha hee hee ho haaaaaaa haaaaa ha!
Which slumlord wrote this? I got to email them and thank them for the best laugh I've had in a while.
Boo hoo, pity the poor landlords of Salisbury, boo hoo hoo!
A 1500 sq ft house assessed at only $20,000? Must be a DUMP!
That tax amount is an eye opener!
I pay 10 times what that place does and my house is only 50 sq ft more!
THAT MAKES ME MAD!
Isn't Leer the white hair guy with the big mouth that drones on and on at the end of almost every council meeting?
Correction:
604 Smith Street is 2600 square feet and broken up into apartments, according to State data.
There were at least 4 police calls in the last year in addition to the code compliance calls.
Rent for this place? At least $800 a month for the tenants as a group, maybe more. Take off $2000 for maintenance and taxes and the profits are....
Easy to see through the smokescreen put up by SAPOA. It's all about $$ and how to keep it that way.
3:08 & 3:21 -
How about some other places -- not just your cherry-pick. Try some of those in the main part of Camden and throw in Marley Manor and some other apartment complexes for good measure.
And what about those rental homes where there are very few or no calls, etc. (all "profit" for the City).
Why should the City expect more from landlords than homeowners -- will they make them leave their homes if there are 3 calls for service?
3:34, I read the legislation online as I said on another post. The "amortization" bill don't apply to Marley Manor. The "three strikes" bill sounds like a good deal for the good landlords if they use it right.
Nobody's trying to get rid of all rentals. No offense, but that's just a dumb bunch of politicking by landlords. If they spent as much time working on keeping their properties nice as they do standing up at bellyaching at meetings, the city would look a lot better.
3:44, there ain't too many homeowner houses like that. I'm not worried about that.
Other cities have similar codes that allow for eviction by landlord if there are multiple police calls and/or zoning violations,and it has helped clean up the streets considerably in places where it is actually applied.I rent too but if the guy next door to me rents and is running a meth lab or has the cops breaking up fights every weekend,don't I deserve some relief?Itd not anti-renter its pro-quality of life.Who cares who will give them housing?If they are a nuisance to other residents their housing is not my concern
3:34
You don't get the point, which is that crime follows substandard rentals, and that the crime actually increases the rentals' substandard conditions, along with taking the neighborhing streets and the whole city with them.
How about you take all of the houses from the head of Camden between Camden and Waverly and then tell us what the SDAT tax data are and the number of police and code compliance calls, and then let us know what you find.
No one said that all rentals are the home of criminals or code problems. The idea is to target the ones that are, if the landlords won't raise a finger (which they pretty much haven't), and reduce the crime. If you want to lump all rentals together and ignore the worst, or worse, support them, then you're working against having a safer city, a city that invites business, is good for kids and is a great place to live, learn and thrive.
My goodness! Was this letter to the editor written by a landlord?
If the mayor et al really believes getting rid of "problem (for the city)" tenants he only has to pass law(s) that will empower landlords to get rid of them easily. Despite some tough language in the proposed "Safe Streets" legislation, landlords are confined by law in what manor and time frame they can evict people by Md and Fed laws.
I would like to see some stats from the city about how many of the "problem properties" are owned by SAPOA members. I joined SAPOA this year (attended one meeting) and found most of the members to be folks that are also very concerned with crime stats.
For those that have read the proposed legislation, I would encourage you to also read at the City Of Salisbury website(on the bottom) the crime commision study which points to the socio-economic factors in Wicomico county as the main factor in crime. There are 2(TWO) sentences in that study that refer to housing as a problem. Look at the police reports on arrests for the more serious crimes in the Salisbury area; many times the address of the perp is "no fixed address" or they are not from this area to begin with. They move in and out of friends/relatives homes at the drop of a hat.
The current legislation will do very little to help control crime IMHO but will add to the costs of doing business in Salisbury for landlords, which of course will lead to more "illegal tenants" (no fixed address people) and a lower standard of life for all of us.
I would like for all concerned with adequate housing for the less fortunate people in Salisbury to look at the city's track record of building or creating that housing. Ask when the last housing project was built in Salisbury.
Unfortunately the mayor etc. has chosen a path of least resistance (blame it on the landlords) to take the heat off himself for what now appears to be a true crime wave in the city.
This is bad legislation, that will not empower the landlords to get rid of crime-prone tenants or solve the vast majority of serious crime that plagues both our community as well as the rest of our nation.
8:13
go to:
http://www.ci.salisbury.md.us/Portals/0/Press/Leer22710.pdf
Post a Comment