RACE PIMPS OF THE WORLD UNITE!
SAPOA (Salisbury Area Property Owners Association) – our local slumlords’ guild – has decided to use the tactics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to get what they want. What is even sadder, they had already won most of this battle.As reported in today’s Daily Times (front page, above the fold, no less), SAPOA has filed a complaint with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Among other things, there complaint alleges:
the proposed ordinance (Ireton’s “Safe Streets” proposal) to eliminate nonconforming multifamily dwellings "disproportionately implicates the rights of African-Americans and other minority races, as well as individuals with mental and physical handicaps. The city is engaging in a practice of ongoing housing discrimination that implicates, among other things, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968."
We have already opposed several portions of Ireton’s proposal, not because it is “discriminatory”, but because it strips property owners of their property rights and strips landlords and renters of basic liberties such as “innocent until proven guilty”. That said, we are very disappointed that SAPOA president Kris Adams has decided to take her organization down the road previously travelled by the likes of slumlord Donnie Williams – professing to be the defender of the poor, the oppressed, the black, and the brown – while profiting off of these same groups.
Let’s be real. SAPOA members are business people. They are providing a needed service in order to make a profit. They should be commended for their entrepreneurship. In a recent interview with Phil Tilghman on his PAC-14 show One on One Adams came off as the poster child of her organization. Rather than acting like some benevolent plantation master, Adams portrayed herself, and her fellow landlords, as entrepreneurs who work hard to make a decent return on their investment. She argued that they were participants in a free market. Now they are arguing that Ireton is somehow a racist.Besides showing themselves to be hypocrites of the worst kind – SAPOA doesn’t want any government regulation unless they can twist it to their advantage – they are arguing a near impossibility. While I have disagreed with Jim Ireton on many issues, including large portions of his “Safe Streets” initiative, arguing that Jim Ireton is engaging in discrimination against the black community is almost as ridiculous as arguing that I am anorexic or that Barack Obama supports limited government.
With more and more citizens agreeing that much of Ireton’s proposal is not crime legislation, but housing regulation (at best) or an attempt to strip landlords of their property rights, SAPOA was a long way towards winning this battle. Now they are showing themselves to be hypocrites and back to practicing the character assassination which backfired and helped put Ireton in the mayor’s office. I was hopeful that Adams would bring a new, more straightforward, and even more civil approach to SAPOA’s political activities. Sadly, citizens who were in the middle on this issue may (and probably should) tilt towards Ireton. SAPOA’s latest stunt is merely an attempt to drain the city treasury and attack Ireton’s character.
41 comments:
What a joke SAPOA. You should be ashamed of yourself to make up these lies. Any ounce of respect you had as an organization has been flushed along with load of s$%^.
Excellent and rational article.
I'll give my opinion as someone from the outside without a dog in the fight, but I've watched the drama go on for years.
The Adams woman reminds me a lot of Barrie Tilghman really, but prettier and sweeter looking so better able to play the role.
She speaks of cooperation, but apparently isn't working for cooperation. She plays the victim to the public while working with her SAPOA cronies to attack, attack, attack.
SAPOA keeps trying to change their public image, but their inner ugliness can't help but come out.
Personally i live in the Camden neighborhood and would love to see these houses put back to single family homes .... the slumlords just use them as a cash cow and let any piece of scum move in and trash the place .... also crime breeds in this place because of it. I personally disagree with Ireton on almost everything except this ... the shooting on Newton Terrace is an example of why these type of dwellings are bad
I want SAPOA to give full disclosure.
They should publish a list of SAPOA members, their race and their addresses so the public can decide for themselves if they represent their tenants. Since they like to bash the people of Camden, let's see how integrated their neighborhoods are and how many low-income people live next to them.
Maybe you should publish that police report again that you put on the blog, the one where the SAPOA member was cussing and screaming racial slurs.
SAPOA just doesn't want to have to clean up and bring up to code the dumps they rent at really high prices to these minorities.
I live in Camden too. However, it is an untenable proposal that all the older homes that long ago were converted to apartments or housing for college students can be returned to single-family housing. Few single families can afford the upkeep, not to mention the heating costs, of most of these homes. Families are now much smaller than they were when these old homes were single-family dwellings. If these houses had to revert back to single-family residences, I can guarantee you that most of them would sit vacant and slowly decay.
An example: the house next to me is one of these old homes, built in the early '20's. It is now home to several students (who, by the way, cause me no problems; they come and go quietly and keep the outside appearance up.) The owner put lots of money into making this house a nice place to live. If he were forced to change it to a single-family home, he would find it very difficult, probably impossible. To recoup what he paid, he would have to charge rent that would be unaffordable to most single families. As it is, the rent is divided among several students, making if affordable to each one. So what is the owner supposed to do? He bought it in good faith that he could rent it out.
There may be hundreds of such homes in Salisbury. Is the proposed legislation designed to turn them all back to single-family? If so, the intent could backfire, leaving many houses to become derelict.
Could someone who understands the legislation set me straight on just what it entails? Is my understanding correct or not?
SAPOA has stooped to an all time low now dropping the race card. It something was discriminatory don't you think the minority tenants would be screaming discrimination. This is a desperate attempt for the scum at SAPOA to grasp straws. They are the ones that are lowering the quality of life for the tenants. They need to be ashamed of themselves and I hope this attempt backfires for them in the upcoming election.
11:21,
You say "He bought it in good faith that he could rent it out." Well, that might be the story now, but it isn't true. the laws were on the books when the guy bought the house--real estate law requires that the zoning be revealed. So the guy KNEW the house was being used illegally, he just hoped that the law would not be enforced. That is the key to all of this: the laws were already there, the landlords chose to ignore them. Now, as I understand it, the city is giving them 10 years before the houses in question have to be in compliance with existing law. So SAPOA is crying about a bunch of malarkey. Think of it this way: gee, I didn't KNOW I was supposed to pay taxes for the last 20 years, so therefore I should not have to pay taxes ever again, and I should not be penalized for the previous 20 years. baloney.
Money over principle makes you a whore.
11:54, I can agree that it is pretty "low" to drop the race card. But to paint SAPOA with one brush as "scum" is wrong. Is every person who is in SAPOA "scum?" I am acquainted with Kris Adams and have know Richard Insley for years. Are they "scum?" They're trying to make a living, just as other owners of rentals that I know. Yes,it is a business, but most of the property owners keep their places in good repair.
If I were part of SAPOA and the proposed Safe Streets legislation was threatening me, I guess I would take whatever measures I could to fight it. I'm trying to put myself in its (SAPOA's) shoes.
She may have a point. If the landlords are forced to convert say a 12 unit 6,000 sq ft building back to single family they would be displacing these people who typically have an affordable rent and do tend to be minorities. Rent a 1 bedroom on Camden $350 rent from a complex (Oak Hill/Parkside)$650.
Can a family of 4 afford the upkeep and utilities on a home of that size or want to live in the neighborhoods these properties exist?
The historical societies (see Berlin)are making it harder & costlier for the owner to repair/upgrade by forcing period windows,siding etc instead of the more cost & energy efficient products that exist today.
IMHO the landlords would be better off abandoning the building than go throught the cost of conversion & attempting to sell as a single family for a loss.
It wasn't right to do, but this was definitely smart politically.
The racist Thomas Ruark of Ruark Rentals is a member of SAPOA as well as GNI, and Advanced Property Rentals for what? If a rental applications ask for the places that you have lived in the last 7 years why would your residnece not listed because it was 13 years ago be held against you. SAPOA is B.S. and should be dismantled as you see these same landlords listed above are still slum lords. Go figure.
I really hate that the only neighborhood you all talk about is Camden. That is not the only neighborhood in Salisbury. Go to the "other" side of Rt. 13 - the same thing goes on there but does it get the attention that Camden Avenue gets - NO. There are plenty of houses on Washington Street and other streets in Salisbury that the landlords are doing the very same thing and in one word it's "wrong". A single family house is just that, not 3-4 apartments. SAPOA is wrong in going down this avenue and they know it. If they would just quit being slumlords no one would have a problem - it's when they get so money hungry that things get all screwed up.
I'm pretty positive Thomas Ruark is NOT the owner of Ruark Rentals.
It is not racist to want better living conditions for occupants of the city's rental properties.Some people are paying alot of rent,way more than the ideal 20% of their income,for homes that are not up to code.
Can anyone explain to me how business owners filing suit on behalf of their clientele (who would be negatively impacted by this legislation) can logically be equated to "playing the race card?" You are basically saying that any professional who stands up for the rights of a minority client is a racist. It sounds to me like G.A. Harrison is working on behalf of his own agenda because what he is proposing is not only hateful, but makes absolutely no sense.
There are probally as many "whites" staying in slum housing as they are "blacks" we also have laitnoes. These people stay from one place to another. These places are not up to code and should not be rented until they are liveable by humans.
Have you noticed when you ask some of these people their address they tell you they "stay" at a certain address. It is not good enough to say they LIVE there.
Most of these people change addresses ever 3 months..WHY?
Rental income is down, so say the landlords. The renters money is down down..so these people find a large house and moms,aunts, uncles and all the children pool their money and survive in one house. They found a way to survive.
Landlords need to take a personal look at their properties, inside and out just to see what condition they are really in.
12;15, the house I cited converted from single-family to student rental probably 20 or more years ago. (I have lived next to it for over 40 years). The present owners bought it from the man who converted it as well as a good many other houses in the area. They bought is so that their child and some of her friends could live in it as they attended college. The daughter graduated from SU and moved back to the Western Shore. I doubt if the present owners were aware of the fact that they might have to turn the house back into single-family. They could probably not ever hope to sell it and recoup all the money they have invested in the upgrades they have made. At least with students, who are properly screened, they can cover the cost of the mortgage from rent they receive. How many single families can afford--or even want--to pay $2000 or so a month for an old house? Multiply this scenario by the number of similarly-converted houses across the city, such as those on Isabella Street and one can see a huge problem arising.
2:48, you may not fully understand the laws and the proposal. The owner of the property that you are talking about may have applied for an recieved what I think was called an exception so taht his/her property could be rented to either 3 or 4 unrelated people (including, but not limited to students). There is a list of properties taht applied for and received the exception. They would not be impacted by the proposed legislation. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Legal is legal and illegal is illegal. Greed and a desire to have guarantees in speculative real estate investment sounds a little like the guys on wall street who didn't want regulation, but wanted bail outs.
2:58, thanks for the explanation. No,I don't know the proposed law as well as I should (my fault, of course) its ramifications. I have gone to the City's website and have seen that the house in question is permitted to have four non-related occupants. Is this, then, forever?
11:21 AM
It's funny this person post's as anonymous. Any real homeowner would prefer to have their neighbor all owner/occupied. Better neighbors and better assessments.
My guess is you are a slumlord making it sound like it's Ok to have the Camden neighborhood riddled with rentals and crime.
If you want credibility then sign your name and address.
Anonymous said...
11:54, I can agree that it is pretty "low" to drop the race card. But to paint SAPOA with one brush as "scum" is wrong. Is every person who is in SAPOA "scum?" I am acquainted with Kris Adams and have know Richard Insley for years. Are they "scum?" They're trying to make a living, just as other owners of rentals that I know. Yes,it is a business, but most of the property owners keep their places in good repair.
If I were part of SAPOA and the proposed Safe Streets legislation was threatening me, I guess I would take whatever measures I could to fight it. I'm trying to put myself in its (SAPOA's) shoes.
12:37 PM
Yes they are scum and more than likely you are as well.
First time I've ever said this... right on, G.A.
2:58 is right. 2:48, you are talking about a scenario that is not affected by this proposed legislation (although SAPOA would love to have it all lumped together as if ALL renters will somehow be displaced). it is actually for a very specific set of illegal rentals, not rentals that have sought ought and obtained a legal variance. Now, if mom and dad bought the house and DID NOT seek a variance and now want to rent it to 4 unrelated people, then too bad! People who buy houses in an area zoned for residential should not have to live next to an illegal boarding house. Why should we feel bad for the landlord who has an illegal house when those of us who bought houses in an area zoned residential are following the rules? Why should the value of MY house go down because a landlord ignored the law when they bought a house?
2:09 PM is obviously a SLUMLORD!! Their way or no way!
3:43, No, I am not a slumlord! I am, as I said, a long-time homeowner in Camden. It's ironic you should link rentals with crime. In fact, the last family/homeowners who lived there before it became a rental property were the neighbors from hell! Two of their children did become involved with the legal system. So not all homeowners are as you would like to picture them: Mom and Dad with their two sweet children living in a house with the white picket fence. I'll take the present occupants any day: a quiet group of college students. The owners of the house screen the young people before they move in.
I think it is rather deplorable that not one of the above comments addresses the real issue. Apparently no one who reads this blog cares in the least that the proposed legislation is in fact discriminatory. Is the city to be held to NO STANDARDS when they write legislation that effectively puts people into the streets and steals owner property rights? The facts show that minorities are going to be displaced from their homes and no other affordable housing is available to them. As usual, personal agendas and the joy of slander are more important than acknowledging the reality of the situation. HUD would not investigate the complaint if it had no merit.
A past SOPOA president is one of the most racist people I know. I have witnessed it personally. This is no secret in this town and this person is one of the most influential people in this group. This group is all about their own interests so let's not pay any attention to their soapbox antics.
Is this what Shanie Shields wanted when she said that the NAACP would have to look at the Safe Streets proposal?
What a joke SAPOA, Sorry A$$ Pretend Opressing Appeal. Come on, I can go to a predominately black neighborhood and poll the residents. Lets see all your books. I think this is even more proff to regulate them, license the buildings and heavy fines if not kept up. On this 4 to 2, 2 to 4, how about one per bedroom. If you bought a 6 bedroom house, let size unrelated people stay there. If you bought a two bedroom, then let two. Simple, designed as 4 bedrooms stays as 4 bedrooms. So easy it's stupid.
SAPOA as the defender and guardian of poor minorities--OMG that is about as ridiculous as it gets!! How did SAPOA keep a straight face !!
Folks regardless of whether you own (good for you) or rent (bad of you) your home or appartment, get up tomorrow and make it look pretty, and ALL the criminals will go away, cause apparently they can't stand pretty.
Ah, I feel so much safer already!
The subject here is not whether or not this proposed law is good or bad, and whether it does or does not discriminate against this or that group is a moot point.
The real issue here is that this proposal has been run up the flagpole now for over six months with a request that it be put on the table for civil discussion and has been denied that opportunity.
So, as it stands now, it remains a proposal; an IDEA, a suggestion. Until something becomes law and enforcement begins, it can harm no one!
To bring LEGAL ACTION against a person or group for asking for a discussion of an idea should be prosecuted as a frivolous attack and assault to the fullest extent of the laws.
Bringing an idea to the table is not a crime.
Refusing to discuss an idea brought to the table is not a crime.
This action IS A CRIME.
When this all came up, SAPOA took Louise into a room and told her to stonewall until they could come up with a strategy that would take them to the 2011 election and make this an issue.
Six months have passed and Louise did her SAPOA-dictated job. The proposal never made it to the council table for DISCUSSION, let alone public discussion and votes.
As it is, hardly anyone supports the package as written, but most want to see it discussed and the useful parts tweaked. SAPOA's flooding of the three public meetings with members and shills that spoke in lies and innuendo did nothing to protect or serve those who need it the most, the least able to protect themselves from SAPOA, SAPOA's own tenants.
And now, the race card. No doubt a ploy suggested and/or orchestrated by landlord and SAPOA's legal counsel, T.J. Maloney. How do people sink so low?
So, 7:37 how would you be privy to SAPOA taking anyone into a room and dictating terms unless you were in there with them? Sounds like Debbie, Terry, Jim or Tim are spreading their usual inaccurate political theories. Perpetuating the rental war and the blame game is simply a political tactic. They use this method of diversion to get elected because each of them have so few personal merits to offer the city as leaders. The blame game has gotten their ilk elected for the past 10 years which has only resulted in continuing pettiness and lack of civility.
Salisbury citizens, Rise Above! VOTE based on facts not innuendo.
most ARE NOT slumlords. weed out the ugly few.....
I have an idea lets make Kris Adams and Richard Insley live in the Camden neighborhood for a minimum of 1 year on lets say Light street or the north end of Smith street.. i will bet they would change their tune real fast.. these people are are nothing shills for the slumlords .. an even better idea should be to make the slumlord owner live in their substandard houses.. ill bet it gets fixed up real quick
Oh Cory...Both Richard Insley and Kris Adams lived in the city for long periods of time. In fact, Richard Insley served as the president of the Camden Association for years. Additionally, Kris Adams lived in several locations in the city for over a decade. Stop snorting the coolaid dude and get the facts.
They lived here, but they bialed (Insley and Adams). It makes no difference though. The issue is substandard housing and what it does to our city and all of the people who live here, including those suffering the deplorable conditions.
8:01 How about producing some facts to support the claim that a large percentage of rentals are in deplorable condition. I keep hearing random charges without proof. Your post, like so many others, is full of the same inaccurate broad generalizations that have been sputtered about by the mindless Debbie Campbell lackies for years. If you're an adult try employing some critical thinking skills. Eventually, with God's grace, maybe you'll recognize how sorely you are being used for someone else's personal political gain.
Post a Comment