Salisbury’s politics play out like the theatre of the absurd. Despite the intellectual evolution of man, despite the lessons taught to us by World War II in which an entire race of people was vilified and systematically exterminated by their fellow ordinary citizens, only in Salisbury is that same cruel blame tactic used and embraced by the Mayor and certain Council members, namely Terry Cohen and Debbie Campbell. The result is that the larger percentage of the populace of the City is being viewed as second class citizens.
Only in Salisbury is it considered normal for the Mayor and Council to make use of slurs and inaccurate broad generalizations about tenants and business people alike.
Only in Salisbury can two City Council members share the same website and push the same agenda, and no one, especially the press, is disturbed by the collusion.
Only in Salisbury are regulations written in secret by politicians who fail to do proper research and refuse to consider input from all stakeholders affected by such legislation.
Only in Salisbury do we have unethical politicians who spend $10,700 in State of Maryland Safe Streets money to write anti-tenant rental legislation and market the package to a public desperate for crime reduction and bill it as a "crime fighting initiative", which in reality is a host of housing bills that have been pushed for 10 years.
Only at a Salisbury City Council work session do those same Council members become so enamored with their own voices that they inadvertently reveal the details of their master plan: decrease the number of rental units in the City from 61% to 40%. The true objective of pushing the Safe Streets Legislation is to pass as many of the first seven items as possible and then to open Pandora’s Box of tools to squeeze the life out of the rental industry through government mandated leases, rent control, revoking property rights, property seizures, implementation of excessive rental registration fees and the use of eminent domain to name a few.
Only in Salisbury is a "public input" meeting code language for a taxpayer funded bully pulpit to proselytize and to campaign for re-election.
Only in Salisbury do local politicians think they can run businesses better than the entrepreneurs who specialize in their own industry.
Only in Salisbury do certain Council members insist they are entitled to full time benefits when other part-time employees are not so entitled.
Only in Salisbury can a person run for office who has multiple open housing code violations against his home, violations which by law should categorize him as a Habitual Offender. This person is rendered exempt from following the same laws other citizens are held hostage by because he is a crony of the Mayor and certain Council persons. Laws apparently only apply to the lowly citizens, not the elite politicians.
Only in Salisbury do we deny housing to the veterans who served and protected our country because the veteran’s house doesn’t fit the Mayor and Council Members’ myopic definition of what is acceptable.
Only in Salisbury do City Officials get paid to testify based on skewed information.
Only in Salisbury does the Administration engage in military maneuvers by descending upon neighborhoods under the guise of protecting tenants health, safety and welfare when the existing rental inspection program meets those worthwhile objectives.
Only in Salisbury? NOT!!!
This extremist agenda has been plaguing this City since business owners lost the right to vote, resulting in a slow death of Salisbury’s growth and vitality. I submit, “the something's rotten" in the City of Salisbury is the same "something's rotten” that is causing the demise of the United States of America: government intrusion, unnecessary mandated government regulation, dishonesty, irresponsible spending, and taxation without representation.
How do we stop Salisbury wilting on the vine? If all the world’s a stage, then it is time for the curtain to fall on Salisbury’s theatre of the absurd and its bad actors. Go to the auditions and pick out a cast of common sense, business friendly players whose goal will be to serve all members of the community, not just the folks in their club.
Our country just had a pivotal election where we historically changed the face of Congress due to dissatisfaction with our elected officials. The same upset needs to happen here in Salisbury. No more Divas and their lackeys. Vote for new talent.
31 comments:
This is an absolute crock.
It's certainly OK for people to make money renting their properties, but there MUST be some appropriate restraints applied by the local government.
I hate to bring this up, but people with a profit motive don't always do the right thing.
If they could rent their properties without creating any undue burden on the taxpayers (beyond what normal owner-occupied homes create), that would be fine.
But they don't.
The rentals eat up a lot of resources, especially when the police have to spend so much time responding to problems created by the tenants.
This post is nothing more than a SAPOA tantrum. A childish schoolyard rant.
"No fair! No fair!"
Yes fair.
Rentals are ruining Salisbury (and other areas), mainly because of the character of many of the people who live in them, and the unwillingness of the landlords to police themselves and their properties.
When it becomes a public burden (which it has been for long time), that's when the taxpayers have the right to set boundaries and enforce them.
That's where we are now.
Wow! Did you really just compare Salisbury to the Holocaust? Way to offend a ton of people. Anyway, a couple things, you are so angry at this certain someone why don't you have the courage to name them? Also, I feel the only people in my neighborhood that I can't stand (i.e. the ones that don't cut their grass, have the cops called to their house, have loud parties) and the ones who are renting; not the home owners. P.S. I am a landlord, though not in Salisbury.
McGruff,
Hear me out. It is no secret that property owners and city officials do not see eye to eye on many things. The current mayor has used the ever increasing crime rates as a device to push his safe-streets legislation package. When you hear Jim speaking about this marvelous package that is going to reduce crime and improve our overall quality of life, you whole-heartedly throw your support for the mayor.
Fortunately, enlightened people such as yourself clarify to the public that this "Safe-Streets" nonsense is just a facade for a piece of legislation that targets property owners as well as tenants.
Your delusions of grandeur for Salisbury are hindered by only one thing; Salisbury University. Students represent a large portion of renters in Salisbury and student's need a place to live. You will never get rid of that body of renters without getting rid of the university. Students will rent and there is no getting around that.
You make the point that rentals create undue burden on taxpayers more-so than owner-occupied residences do. I'm not up on my rental vs. owner occupied statistics but my argument would be that the tenant pays the landlord who then pays taxes. If the property is taxed then it is financially reconciled with the city and entitled to as many calls for service as it needs.
Rentals are not ruining Salisbury. City officials frittering away precious money is ruining Salisbury. i.e. Paying an appalling amount of money for the property that furnished the old mall, selling the firehouse for chump change, and pushing absurd legislation.
But what do i know. I've already got three strikes against me. I'm a college kid, i don't live in the city (thank god), and my post will probably never be published. I do have one thing in my favor; my argument has integrity where your's does not.
Ms. Adams,
In my opinion, your "Special Comment" is an excellent example in what is wrong with Salisbury today. In the space of a few paragraphs, you leveled the following charges, with very little evidence:
1) SBY govt's rental restrictions are equivalent to the mass murder of Jews in WWII
2) SBY's Mayor and Council use slurs to describe their opponents
3) That two SBY Council members who are often allied in philosophy and principles are "colluding"
4) That regulations are written in secret, despite the many public meetings and comment periods
5) That SBY's politicians are unethical, because they have created rental restriction legislation
6) That SBY's current government is being deceitful about their desire to see less rentals and more homeownership in the city
7) That certain unspecified people in SBY are engaged in various standard activities in a democracy (running for office, seek better benefits, provide for regulation on business, testify to best of their knowledge) that you find unconscionable.
8) That SBY govt is conducting a military-style operation (using assault weapons and SWAT tactics, perhaps?) to carry out its responsibilities for protecting the welfare of its citizens
I think it becomes quite clear that your point is well-made - something indeed is "rotten" in Salisbury and it is the same root cause of our current problems in the County at large. What is rotten is our rhetoric...inflammatory, insulting, outrageous, and irresponsible.
And I am afraid that with your letter, you have made it plainly clear that your organization intends to be part of problem, rather than part of the solution.
Wow, I never thought I'd say this on Sbynews, but I actually agree with someone! Well said holierthanthou! It's nice to know that there are more than 5 people in this town who are paying attention. I am also a student at SU,(a business major as you'll see in a minute) and this legislation could really screw things up for me if it is passed. McGruff, I can see where you are coming from in arguing that profit sometimes yields corruption, but in this case, I don't think that is an issue. First of all, landlords only stand to profit from a safer town; when crime is lower in any area it inversely increases residency levels, i.e. tenants. So really these SAPOA people have more to gain from eliminating crime than they do by maintaining it; saying that they profit from renting to criminals doesn't make much sense from a business standpoint. I'm pretty sure that criminals generally don't have insurance, make more than $24,000 a year (on my lease, you have to make at least that much in order to rent without a co-sign, and whose going to co-sign a lease for a criminal?) and I'm guessing that they probably don't take particularly good care of the places they rent. So what exactly would landlords profit from renting to criminals (which is what Safe-Streets accuses them of doing)?
I don't think the "character of the people" who live in these places is really what's effecting crime. In fact, I don't think that the character of renters has anything to do with crime at all since landlords would definitely make more money off of good tenants than bad ones. And Anne, it looked to me like whoever wrote this definitely named names. They called out Debbie Cambell and Terry Cohen for being on the pulpit and guess what? I watch the council meetings on cable and all I see is those two women talking. If they are listening to the people of Salisbury it must be on their own time cause they sure don't seem to hear very much on Wednesday nights when I watch them. And as for the Mayor...I don't know how he can meet this much opposition from the business community and still think that this package is a good idea. They aren't idiots, why are they going to agree to something that would hurt their industry? And why would he keep pushing something that he knows (he has to know by now) would screw over so many people who have nothing to do with crime and at the same time do nothing about the actual criminals? The whole thing sounds crooked to me. You guys may not trust "the money" and you may think that college kids are the cause of problems in Salisbury, but I've been jumped twice since I moved here and it wasn't by friends and it wasn't because of my landlord.
Start charging for service calls by police to properties which are repeated violators.
Everyone is entitled to police protection regardless of taxes paid. But being a drain on resources and tying up those services when they are needed elsewhere for more serious crimes should be addressed.
Hobie88,
Maybe Ms. Adams is being a bit harsh, but what if she is right? How do you know that city officials aren't drafting back-room legislation in secret? You may not like how she said it, but if what she says is right, the least of Salisbury's problems is "our rhetoric."
htt:
I have no delusions about anything.
Salisbury is a rental town, mainly because of a bad neighbor-- SU-- who decided many years ago to just expand the profit-generating parts of the univ. and not waste money on housing. An 'official' admitted that a few years back in a meeting.
Renters, as a whole, don't vote or care much about the community they live in, though in this case SAPOA scared them with lies and got them out to the polls.
They have nothing vested in the community, and nothing to lose with a frivolous vote.
There's nothing wrong with 'college kids', as long as you all act right.
We have this battle every stinkin' year.. "We should be able to party if we want to.., you did it when you were young.. so what if we piss in your yard.." blah blah.
Just because some taxes have been paid on a property, it doesn't mean you're owed whatever resources are needed.
That's the kind of thinking that is creating the problems.
Who cares about the homeowners. The people who have lived here all their lives.
Your neighbors.
But this is about much more than student rentals.
This area is absolutely overrun with immigrants, many illegal, who are sucking up all the inexpensive housing and driving rents up for EVERYBODY.
And our streets are full of unsupervised children and young adults with GUNS.
Guess where most of them live...
Like it or not, it's time to get our streets and our city back under control.
It will take some boundary-setting and enforcement, and that's what we must do.
Some won't like that. But they'll just have to move on, because the squeeze is coming.
The taxpaying citizens have had enough of the foolishness, and we ARE going to get it under control.
Ok,first of all let me say that I do not support the majority of the anti-landlord legislation that Ireton had proposed. Partly because I really don't think it will work and partly because I believe the government is over-extending its power. I think this whole war against the landlords is really just a smoke screen for the other problems in Salisbury. However, I do have to say to Ms. Adams that this post is not helping your case any. I don't believe that in the whole post there was one valid supported point. You have a valid case, don't ruin it with petty name calling and outlandish accusations. And really, comparing the problem to WWII??? Statements like that are what is really hurting your case and making all the landlords look bad.
McGruff,
Salisbury University is not the cause of major crime in Salisbury. Get an irrigation system so that when drunken kids pee in your yard you can squirt em with some water or better yet, get a fence. It will improve your curb appeal and make salisbury more desirable.
You obviously have had some unfortunate experiences with college kids but as i have stated...college kids are not the problem that needs to be dealt with.
You stated: "And our streets are full of unsupervised children and young adults with GUNS. Guess where most of them live..." I don't care where they live. I'd rather have them penalized for packing heat rather than having long grass. If i have ever seen a waste of resources it is this.
Also, i can assure you that renters must provide valid proof of citizenship or right to be within the country in order to sign any lease with a legitimate landlord. I doubt SAPOA represents that type of landlord.
I can sympathize with you as far as feeling helpless with regard to pesky college students. Perhaps you should explore creating a homeowners association in your own neighborhood that might work with landlords to offer incentives to good neighbors.
Food for thought: Would you rather have a college student pee in your front yard once or would you rather have a homeless person taking a squat in your bushes on a daily basis because that is what is going to happen if you start putting these people out of their houses.
LetsBLogical:
Nice post.
You're thinking, and that's good.
But you're in the realm of the 'theoretical'-- (probably a habit from your current environment..)
Many landlords LOVE the illegals, because they'll take whatever you give them, pay whatever you charge them, and won't complain because they're afraid of getting caught.
Beyond the student population (which generally aren't criminals.. :-) a fair portion of the rental population includes single moms with numerous kids. Mom's gone much of the time working or doing who knows what, and the kids are pretty much on their own.
Especially when there is no positive male influence in the house, things often get out of hand.
That is exactly where the gang problem is coming from.
I'm not disparaging 'renters', I'm just pointing out the facts, as they relate to the issue.
When a neighborhood is full of wild people with guns, the landlords don't exactly get to pick and choose their tenants. A warm body with sufficient money in their hand will generally have to do. Empty houses don't make a profit.
McGruff,
I pay my own bills, my environment isn't that theoretical although at this point I'm pretty sure yours is. Still, on behalf of all of the college students who have ever gone to SU, and on behalf of all the ones who are coming-there will be thousands more- I would like to sincerely apologize for the jerks who pissed in your yard. I wouldn't want anybody taking a leak on my lawn either...kills the grass. Now that that is settled, I would like you and everybody else who doesn't like college students to listen to me, because this is important: PEOPLE ARE DEAD BECAUSE NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT CRIME IN SALISBURY. AND YOU ARE STILL UPSET ABOUT EMPTY BEER BOTTLES. I'm sorry that people party in your neighborhood, but that is a problem that can wait. Can't you see the bigger picture here? A 62 YEAR OLD WOMAN WAS KILLED IN HER OWN HOUSE LAST MONTH. Where are your priorities? It is not my fault that Salisbury University planted itself in your neighborhood 50 years ago. But it is going to be your fault if more people die because you let legislation THAT TARGETS GRASS AND EMPTY BEER BOTTLES get passed when you know perfectly well that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH CRIME. You say you love Salisbury? Prove it. Use your brain. You people are mad at Ms. Adams for calling out the Mayor and the city council for not doing their job? Well, guess what? They aren't doing their job! THEY HAVE SPENT MONTHS ON A PROJECT WHICH ISN'T GOING TO KEEP ANY OF US SAFE AND YOU ARE TELLING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE UPSET ABOUT IT TO CALM DOWN?? Here is a message to everybody who doesn't like college students- GET OVER IT. Your fellow citizens are literally DYING because you would rather use tax dollars to target SNOW ON THE SIDEWALK than DRUG DEALERS. I support Ms. Adams. You want a reason why Salisbury looks like Germany in the 1920's? How about the fact that our leaders are doing whatever they feel like doing and you are sitting back and letting them.
htt:
You're doing an awful lot of twisting and distorting of what I say, so I'll pass on further discussion with you.
Good luck to you, though. At least you tried.
Only in Salisbury is there a member of the Chamber of Commerce and the Vice President of the landlord organization, SAPOA, Stu Leer running around spouting publicly, that they have formed a PAC, Citizens for a Better Salisbury,that will spend $100,000 on this election to take control of the council and to unseat the current mayor.
Only in Salisbury can this same Chamber member and Vice President of SAPOA, Stu Leer, make statements such as "It doesn't have to be true, we just have to say it".
Only in Salisbury is this mentality not only supported by many members of SAPOA, it is encouraged.
To compare the politics of Salisbury with the Holocaust is no different or less offensive than Stu Leer referring to citizens as being Viet Cong.
Students are the problem for SAPOA. They once made a very lucrative living off these kids, charging them $400 and $500 per month to rent a room. Now that the University has built more housing and the Rinniers have followed suit building more student housing, the slumlords have lost a lot of money on student rentals. Have they invested any of those 100's of thousands if not millions of dollars in their rental property maintenance? Did they treat the students fairly by not maintaining their properties in a safe manner? This bunch of cry baby poor little rich boys and girls need to get over themselves and abide by the law like every other property owner in the city. There are laws on the books, follow them or sell your property to someone that will.
Barrie Tilghman allowed this special interest group to do as they pleased in the city. As long as they were making money they didn't care that their properties were going to ruin, they don't live in the city and they don't have to look at it. They live in places like Nithsdale, High Banks and riverfront McMansions on Riverside Dr. It's all about them and the hell with the neighborhoods.
Kris Adams and her group of slumlords are so used to doing all of their dirt in back rooms they have the audacity to accuse our legislators of doing the same. Well since when did anyone in Annapolis ask our permission to draft legislation in the state? Name one time, one legislator? Just because puppets like Comegys, Smith and Shields were not included doesn't make it wrong. In my opinion it was rather smart and far less time consuming. What exactly could any of the 3 puppets add to any piece of meaningful legislation? What meaningful legislation has any of those 3 offered? All they have done is accomodate every special interest group coming down the pike. They have given away literally millions to special interest groups such as SAPOA and other landlord/developers.
Face it, people are sick and tired of business as usual. They want laws to protect them and their investment in their properties.
If Kris Adams thinks this is the way to affect change, she either needs to see a shrink or she needs to think again. She is especially mad because her student rentals losing thanks to SU's continued expansion of student housing.
Oh and McGruff,
If landlords don't get to choose their tenants that means that they either have to lower their rent or they don't get any. Empty houses don't make a profit and neither does rent that's too low to pay a mortgage on a house. I don't know why you assume that any warm body has "sufficient money" (and sufficient legal documentation) but generally youth and immigrants that "run wild with guns" don't have that kind of money or documentation. And illegal immigrants aren't our main cause of crime-at the very least they are a small part of it, as somebody whose friends with them I can tell you that most of them keep their head down so they don't get, you know, deported.
Unfortunately we live in a time where single mothers have no choice but to leave their kids home alone because they can't afford after school programs and their neighbors *cough cough* are too busy trying to get rid of them rather than trying to help them.
Illegals are not sought after by landlords because it could be dangerous in a business sense. With no legal identification, an illegal immigrant could easily pack up and leave before their lease is up without being traced due to a lack of accurate identification. It's a risky business deal and trust me because there is no guarantee that the tenant will remain at the house for the remainder of the lease. Furthermore, the landlord cannot take a lease violating illegal tenant to court for obvious reasons so there is really no incentive to rent to illegals.
Additionally, you stated that 'empty houses don't make a profit'
CORRECT! And under this legislation, the empty houses are going to keep adding up as landlords sell them and with this abundance of real estate, your property value is going to take a nose dive. Consequently, you're going to get the same folks that you want to get rid of knocking at your for a cup of sugar.
Too much government is never a good thing. Back off Jim, Terry, and Deb.
A-
As far as i can ascertain, you are out of line in saying that it is appropriate to allow back room deals or whatever you called it. If landlords are being taxed then their voice should be just as loud as yours. Their tax dollars are just as good as yours. Get off your high horse and open your eyes. People are dying an you're attacking business. The blinders that these city officials have put on so many people are astounding. Can you not see what is happening. Enjoy your city living and be sure to remember this 15 years from now when your house value has plummeted and your neighbors are pimps and drug dealers that have decided to set up permanent residence.
A,
I've been watching city council meetings for a year or so now, and I gotta say, you sound a lot like that lady Ms. Cambell and for your sake, I really hope you aren't her. Because if you are, you just admitted that you screwed over Salisbury. Whoever you are, you do realize that you just confessed that you are HAPPY that 3 of the 5 people elected to represent Salisbury weren't invited to the drafting of Safe-Streets? You don't see anything wrong with that? I don't care if they couldn't offer anything to that meeting, they should have been there. If we wanted to 2 people to make all of the decisions in Salisbury we would have a panel of 2 people, not a panel of 5. I would rather this legislation take an entire year to draft and the equal representation when it was written than have 6 months worth of unchecked laws written into legislation, and most people with even a grain of common sense probably want the same thing.
htt
Backroom deals are never ok. Drafting legislation is just that,DRAFTING, not making deals. Does every member of the house cosponsor a draft bill? NO! Who was invited to join in is not as big of a concern as you would like people to think. If Comegys, Smith, and/or Shields were involved in the DRAFTING of the legislation you would have nothing to say because your puppets would offer what was given them by their handlers. Do you honestly believe everyone is wearing blinders?
As far as property values declining, have you had an apparisal lately? Every home in these neighborhoods has declined in value due to the deterioration of the neighborhoods. Imagine buying a house 40 years ago and today your house is valued at little more than what you paid. Tell me the gun toting, drug dealers in the neighborhood haven't contributed to the decline in value. Maybe it is you that should get off your high horse and take a walk on the wild side of the city. Pick a neighborhood where more houses on a block are rentals than owner occupied. If the landlord takes no pride in their property why should the tenant?
First of all, nobody is my puppet. Individuals are ELECTED to REPRESENT a certain population. When the population is not being represented by all members then we have a flaws system. I do "walk on the wild side." I also, while not a renter, know landlords and most of them take great pride in their homes. Just because they don't landscape their yards or pour money into making sure that their lawn looks like something out of a Scotts fertilizer commercial doesn't mean they don't take care of their property. I have friends who rent. They decorate their home for the holidays and keep it neat. Salisbury is not going to be lush lawns and white picket fences. Unless we see a boom in business and employment, curb appeal is going to suffer and crime will increase. Lets invest in making more jobs. Gee now there's a thought. Also, I challenge you to look that the problem property of the week. OWNER OCCUPIED. Nothing more needs to be said.
Ok, so if you rent in Salisbury you are linked to crime, party all the time, ruin property, and deemed worthless because you can't afford to buy a house? This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Salisbury seems like such a warm and welcoming place to live (not!) So sad that attention is not placed where it really needs to be. Thanks LETSBLOGICAL. You seem to care about what's really going on. You certainly hit the nail on the head. BTW, I own my house but was a student who rented off campus for 4 years, had an awesome and caring landlord. I cut my grass every week and cared about my neighborhood. If Salisbury had this mentality about renters back then(early 90's), I would have felt like I had leprosy because OMG! I WAS A RENTER!
LetsBLogical, do you comprehend what you read?
First of all, there has been no legislation passed into law. Let's not pretend there has. It is up for discussion, no different than any DRAFT legislation. Do you understand DRAFT?
Second of all, nowhere in any form of government, is every member involved in the DRAFTING of legislation. Quit crying over spilled milk. Campbell and Cohen were invited by the mayor to participate, end of story, get over it. Much of the legislation written regarding the zoning issues was drafted by Paul Wilber and Skip Cornbrooks. The same attorney that Judge Davis stated wrote law to protect the landlords NOT the homeowners/citizens.
Third of all, and most importantly, I am not Debbie Campbell or anyone else you would like me to be. I am, as anonymous as you.
Last, but not least, I rent my home, from a landlord that takes great pride in his property. I don't have a Scotts lawn or a picket fence but I do have a well maintained property.
HTT, all members of council are involved in the vetting process of the DRAFTED legislation. Have you not been paying attention?
The owner occupied problem property of the week should make SAPOA happy. Proof positive the city is not singling out rental properties.
A-
Do you comprehend what you say?!? I've certainly been paying attention. At least more than my fellow college students. I'm sure that the problem property of the week does enthuse landlords in that it is owner occupied. It thrills me because it provides further proof that rentals are not the problem...OBVIOUSLY. Furthermore, if the city were not singling out RENTALS then why is all of this legislation geared towards RENTAL UNITS? In addition, i would like to say that if a government official has an avid interest in participating in the drafting of legislation then they should be included. Ever hear the saying "two heads is better than one" ...Jimmy boy didn't invite Comegys, Shields, or Smith because he knew that they would not have the same SKEWED agenda that he is working so hard to push. I have a grip on the situation. When are you going to get one too? Supporting such legislation is a waste of tax dollars. Salisbury should be ashamed of the direction it is going. Like the little old lady at the public input meeting said: "WE NEED MORE FOOT PATROL" Not more government. Got it? Good
A,
You may not be Debbie Cambell but you sure as heck are not a renter either. And yea, I know what "draft" means, and I know how writing legislation works. Which is why I am appalled (as any responsible member of this city should be) that the Mayor would spend thousands of dollars writing any proposed legislation with only 2 of the 5 council members present! People are dead A! They are dead because instead of cooperating with one another, the Mayor, MS. Cambell, Ms. Cohen, Wilber and Cornbrooks chose to tuck themselves away in some dingy room for the last six months drafting bad legislation while the citizens of Salisbury are getting jumped, burglarized, beat up, and murdered! Are you dense, A? Aren't you upset that with the highest crime per capita in the state of MD, 2 of the 5 people we elected to make good decisions didn't FEEL like working with the other 3? How can you possibly defend them? I know exactly how "drafting" legislation works and I know exactly how agendas work too, and guess what? This has agenda written all over it. How else can you account for a total lack of cooperation and responsibility when our city is in a crisis of this magnitude? You think the landlords are to blame for the crime? Well if they are ever in public office and directly accountable for my tax dollars then I'll do that. But right now, I blame you and everybody else who supports this bad display of leadership; it is already your fault that Salisbury is in this mess and it will be your fault if we fail to get out of it!
What an odious set of analogies.Communities are not free markets for speculation. When what you do with your property effects the well being of the community at large its peace and its value you should be held accountable......just like the demands you make of elected officials.
Marco,
I agree with you, property-owners- landlords and homeowners alike- should be held accountable for the state of their properties...but I don't think that property maintenance is even worth mentioning until crime is under control.
Crime like any other blight festers in opportunistic environments. This community has been divided by Hee-Haw local politicians speculating developers and an influx of retirees that have raised families elsewhere and do not want to support the local tax base. More police and home alarms are not going to solve these problems. Its time to disperse with the down home eastern shore country living mentality. Its had all the charm of Glen Burnie for sometime now. The bays damn near dead the farms once famous for our regional produce now feed fields for the chicken industry. The pretentious peevish pride in christian and family values all co-opted by GREED and everyone bickering and infighting to keep or get what they think their fair share. Id look to Egypt right now we may have forgotten just what democracy is.
Seems like SAPOA finally mustered some righteous indignation. I've see them week after week at the council meetings offering to be helpful and being ill treated or ignored. Government should not be picking and choosing who gets a voice.
Seems like some of the above commentators are not happy that the agenda has been exposed. I find their willingness to trounce on the constitutional rights of others in order to get their own way is a bit alarming. Also, some of the comments in the above posts unfortunately proved Mrs. Adams point about the inflammatory rhetoric being used by those who don't want renters in their neighborhoods.
The sad part of this situation is that the Mayor and Council's dictatorial approach to problem solving is only creating more problems and more resentment in the community.
almost gone...yay
First comment on this blog is hilarious.....so rentals are a drain on city resources because police have to respond to issues caused by tenants? You can't be serious....these tenants arent owned by their landlords...they are city citizens. The police are responding to issues caused by city citizens. You speak as though tenants are property owned by their landlords. McGruff.....your an idiot. Landlords should be responsible for the property...not the people living in them.
Post a Comment