IF I MAY.........?

If I may (or even if I may not) I’d like to respond to the latest contribution from our friends over at Freedom of Speech.


Their post this morning entitled “YOU BOYS JUST DON’T GET IT” brings up some interesting points. Many of them, I in principle, agree with. Others however I’d like to expand upon.

First things first. My take is that the Council Committee really is looking for ways to make New Albany safer, cleaner, and healthier for its citizens (children & seniors alike).

As to why the administration’s entities charged with effectively enforcing the ordinances on the books are not doing so is question I also would like answered.

My suspicion is that the answer lies in part to the lack of staff & resources.

I’m convinced after attending several public meetings on the subject that a lack of understanding of the applicable laws is in play as well.

And finally I think it goes without saying at this point that there is a lack of will (political or otherwise) to take the lid off that particular can of worms.

It is true that there are over 22,000 parcels of property listed as being within the cith limits of New Albany
 in the data bases of the Assessor, the Auditor, the Recorder, and the Platt Room computer systems.

However, that information very often does not match from one office to the next. There are in fact parcels listed as vacant lots that have (and have had for 2 years or more) houses on them.

There are in fact houses on parcels of property that the transfer of ownership has never been recorded. In other words, persons building structures on property they do not legally own at least in terms of a recorded deed transfer.

There are in fact instances (including those like the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph) where said structures were constructed without permit one being applied for much less approved by Zoning & Planning.

There are in fact cases of owners of multiple properties claiming homestead exemptions on more than one of them. Once again, my understanding of the statute is that provision is one per customer.

All of these examples add up to a loss of income (via property taxes) for New Albany. The net result is a lack of dollars available to the city for its many needs to be met.

I don’t mind paying taxes to pay for city services. As a matter of fact, I’ll gladly do so in order to retain that cozy feeling of safety when I lay my head on my pillow at night.

I do however object profusely when I find that not all are required to carry their portion of the burden because they managed to slip thru the cracks.

Are there a lot of these instances? At this point, I honestly can’t say. However one or a hundred it begs the question of “who’s minding the store?” Is the water cooler talk of favoritism more than just talk?

Answers anyone?

And just what does all this have to do with code enforcement and the call for rental property registration?

Well first of all, it explains in part why there are so few dollars that have to be spread so far. It explains in part why the work load overwhelms the staffs in place.

 I will agree that in the case of owner occupied homes, access to the responsible party is relatively easy. He/she lives in the home in question (usually).

However, in more than a few cases locating the individual(s) who have the authority to address a code violation issue for rental properties is much more difficult and time consuming.

As I have said in previous posts on this site and others as well Pam Badger, & Ron Hartman both have cited instance upon instance of not being able to locate said individual which adds weeks, months and even years to a satisfactory solution to the issue.

So as shown by other cities/towns/burgs/puddle stops around the state/country, registration of rental property and the requirement that the owner or his/her agent live either in the city or an adjacent county cuts the time, money, & resources required to solve said issues substantially.

There need not be a fee attached for registering. However failure to do so can result in some serious fines.

Registration need not be a cause of fear for those landlords that are keeping their properties up to snuff. Contrary to popular belief, I choose to think those folk are in the majority.

What it will do is shine the spotlight on those that are not (i.e.; slumlords). While I will acquiesce that “ghosts” may be and probably are hard to locate I’d submit that if efforts could be shifted to doing so instead of being spent digging thru four separate data bases to weed out the offenders from those doing the right thing, the focus of enforcement could shift and become more productive.

As I have mentioned before, after getting the registration data base in place, it will be up to the various entities of the administration to follow thru all the way to a solution case by case.

While it is true that at there may be a requirement for an additional staff person to create, administer, and keep the data in this program current, I can’t envision it being a major budget item.

Anyone with a working knowledge of Excel can put this thing together. Once in place it should not be that difficult to keep current. Assuming of course the person(s) involved want it to remain so.

To paraphrase a quote from FOS, “It ain’t that complicated Boys (Girls)”

Fair?

Yes!

Difficult?

Yes!

Impossible?

Only if the administrators choose it to be!

Only if we the people sit quietly by and allow our elected/appointed government officials to continue doing “business as usual”!!

Who's Job Is It Anyway?

This past Wednesday evening heralded the second in a series of meetings called by New Albany’s Common Council Committee on Housing issues. This committee was formed to look at ways to gain some semblance of control over our ongoing unsafe/uninhabitable housing units within our city limits.


From our point of view, based on how other cities around the country have dealt with such, the starting point would be to have a data base of contact information on all rental property in our city.

Right out of the box jumped the suggestion that requiring rental property only to be registered would somehow give owner occupied homes a free pass from enforcement. Nothing could be further from the truth.

With few exceptions (and yes Ethel, there are exceptions) the responsible party of owner occupied homes is usually pretty easy to track down.

With rental property, that is often not the case. Names change, people move out of state, transfers are not recorded, banks sell mortgages to other banks, etc., etc,…!

Again, citing how others handle these situations, a database of contact information for a locally based responsible party provides a starting point in solving most (not all) of these issues.

An obvious truth came forth that if a ghost landlord did not want to be found, registration would be pointless. I disagree on two points.

First of all, not all problem properties are owned by “ghosts”.

Second, if those that can be found are registered it takes another segment of properties off the extended search grid which saves time, resources, and money for the already overworked enforcement entities. That in turn saves wasted tax dollars and gets us down the road farther & quicker to reclaiming our city. Some of those saved $$"s could then be used for Ghost Hunting!

Somehow the conversation got off track and turned to trash pickup and grass/weed control. Although I’ll agree the city could and should do a better job of both, I fail to see how a landlord justifies the concept that neither is his/her responsibility if the property has a tenant.

While I understand the tenant has rights & responsibilities, I think it behooves the property owners to monitor their property and deal firsthand with their tenants. I don’t see that the city has the obligation to absorb that responsibility from the landlord.

I know that in any State approved rental agreement there are statements of the rights & obligations of both. I don’t read in the statue anywhere that the owner can pass that responsibility off to the city.

Then came the age old discussion of who picks up what for whom as it relates to garbage, trash, & yard waste.

So once again, here’s the skinny as I understand it. I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong although probably anonymously on another blog site.

Southern Indiana Waste Systems will pick up recyclables weekly. It is not the same truck but it is usually on the same day as one’s garbage pickup. Any who don’t know can find out what is or is not recyclable by calling S I W S @ 812-948-5356 and ask for Stanley. Or as an alternative you can call Matt Denison @ 812-948-5333.

The same folks (different truck) will pick up your garbage once a week. Garbage being everyday household trash. Not yard waste, tree limbs, leaves, construction leftovers, etc. In addition, they will (or can by wording of the contract) pick up one (that’s 1 as in singular) other item such as a broken chair, discarded lamp, etc.

Now we come to the street department’s obligation. They will, if you call and politely request, come by and pick up yard waste, tree limbs, bagged leaves and even an occasional couch or mattress upon request. In addition, again if you ask, they have a contact that will come by and remove old appliances such as stoves, refrigerators, etc.

They are not however responsible for nor have the manpower to haul off an entire households furniture & personal belongings.

By ordinance in Chapter 50 Garbage & Refuse; Section 50.08, the city can and I think should, levy a charge of $5 per item for the disposal of large items such as furniture, air conditioners, etc. However I have never known that to be done. Here's the link.

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Indiana/newalb/cityofnewalbanyincodeofordinances?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:newalbany_in

Perhaps if they did and did so consistently, this conversation wouldn’t be as necessary.

Another alternative is for the property owner to call southern Indiana Waste Systems or an alternative waste hauler to dispose of such. Or better yet in the case of rental properties, require a more substantial upfront deposit from the tenant to cover the costs of disposal.

The whole point being ownership carries with it responsibility whether one lives on the premise or not. It is not my job to clean up after neighboring property although many of us have done so and in too many cases continue to do so.

Likewise, it is not the city’s job to do so either. That burden falls squarely on the shoulders of the deeded owner.

I understand that there are those among us that have neither the, health, income, nor family backup to perform costly maintenance on a home they have lived in for years. Thankfully, there is any number of programs throughout the community to address these circumstances.

I also understand there are those who make their living by renting homes to others. Some of those renters are in the same shape as those aforementioned. To the landlords who are carrying that burden, my hats off to you.

However, if all of your tenants are in that shape and you are loosing money on every unit you own, you as well as they are doomed to fail.

If that is not the case, perhaps you should reach out to a more responsible renter clientele and raise your fees in order for you to cover the expenses of helping the needy and maintain your property as well.

Or perhaps you could form an association of like minded landlords and form a slush fund to help those in need.

Before you say it "If you're so damned smart, why ain't you in  business yerself?" let me say been there done that. How do you think I got this smart?

Anyway you do it, letting the property deteriorate just to keep a roof over the tenants head is not a long term solution. Not for the tenant, the landowner, nor the city.

Now to the big dogs! Earlier on this very blog site (Mayor Englands 1st Semester Report Card) I patted this administration on the back for a job well done during its first half year. I sited their reports on bringing to a close many code violations, unsafe houses, and zoning issues.

Having said that, it is evident that these accomplishments while good are only the first peripheral layer of this decades old onion.

We still have city owned property that is overgrown with weeds & debris.

We still street department employees drive by one pile of limbs to pick up another.

We still have multiple police units sitting idly at single traffic stops.

And we still have to question why there are so many outstanding violations of many stripes that have not been addressed.

Nearly every neighborhood association, Board of Works, Building Commission, or Common Council meeting I attend I hear of yet another situation that has allegedly been reported repeatedly and is still unresolved.

We were promised by this council and this administration that actions to do so would be addressed early on. There was much talk of an increase in staff for the city law department to address such matters.

If there has indeed been forward movement in that direction and if some of these issues have been resolved, please tell us. We would love to give you another ‘Atta boy!

If not, understand that the clock is still ticking, this year is nearly over and 2011 looms just over the horizon.

Tic-tock, tic------

On The Eve of Another Council Housing Committee Meeting.........

The 2nd meeting of New Albany Common Council’s “Committee on Housing” is this Wednesday evening at 6 PM in the 3rd floor assembly room in the City/ County building.


This whole process has caused quite a stir within neighborhood groups, local realtor organizations, landlord’s coffee breaks, bar’s, pub’s, blogs, and various city government offices.

Those opposed to any accountability for their business practices ( Ooops I forgot…rental housing is not a business silly boy!) have resorted to calling advocates of such measures to solicit  support! Say what??

In their latest contribution to the cause, the folks over at the premier (Hrrrmmm!) community affairs blog (Freedom of Speech) went to great lengths to tell us what we already knew.

We also have read the New Albany Code Book thank you! We've found it wanting in some areas.

They also informed us that Code enforcement Officer Pam Badger was well versed in wading thru the 4+ separate local government entities to determine who owned a particular piece of property as she is also a part time employee of the assessor’s office.

Well excuse me maam, err…sir, but she is the first city official (there have since been many others) to tell me how difficult, time consuming, and many times dead end that process is. This wheel is broken and we are merely suggesting ways of fixing it.

At any rate being as I have nothing better to with my time (cough, choke) I went to the sacred halls of the City/county Building and looked for myself.

After asking many questions of again, many offices I’ve finally learned how to read much of the hieroglyphics involved in ascertaining the genealogy of a given parcel of land in this city.

What I’ve found is very enlightening. There parcels listed on the tax roles as vacant lots that have houses sitting on them.

There are houses in single family zoned areas that have been made into multifamily living quarters that never went thru the process of acquiring the proper variances’ to operate as such.

And my personal favorite, there are instances of homeowner homestead exemptions on multiple properties of the same ownership. I always thought that was a one per customer gig. Perhaps I am mistaken. If so I’m sure FOS will let me know.

Now before someone starts on the Building Commissioner, Zoning & Planning, the Code Enforcement Officer, etc know this. There are within New Albany Township, there are well in excess of 22,000 parcels of land.

To expect any of the above mentioned offices to do other than put out wildfires as they pop up is ludicrous. With the budgets, staff, & resources they have at their disposal just keeping up with new construction is cramming 12 hours into an 8 hour day everyday.

I can attest that when they become aware of a problem they proceed to do what they can as quickly as they can. Having said that, once it leaves their desk to the next step in the process, it invariably drops off into the abyss.

Hence our suggestions of ways to make their jobs just a little easier.

Hence rental property & abandoned housing registration.

Hence requiring that a responsible party live in or around New Albany (i.e. a surrounding county)

Hence the concept of investigating how other cities around the country deal with these issues and possibly adopting them for New Albany.

By the way, it is our belief that if our Council has the intestinal fortitude to pass legislation that gets deep into the pockets of those who choose to ignore the law and our Mayor’s administration (i.e. law department) has the political will to uphold said legislation thru the courts when necessary, we can see a difference within our city without raising taxes and breaking the bank.

In other words, the fines should pay for the costs of collecting them and the additional staff to do so.

It’s only money folks and our Council President Gahan assured me recently that there is plenty of it here in New Albany. Sounds to me like we just aren’t collecting it.

Don't Ya See? It's a.......! No No No! It's a..........

Trying to define the thought logic of New Albany's elected (choke, cough) leaders is like trying to stand on your head looking at an abstract art painting in an attempt to find that elusive Bengal Tiger that is hinted at in the title of the work.

Add a few top shelf progressive pints to the exercise and one can easily walk away convinced the world really is flat afterall.

Following this past Tuesday's BOW meeting I approached our Tribune reporter, Daniel Suddeath, to ask if he had been present at the inaugural Council Committee meeting on housing.

His reply was no, but that he was drafting an article on the subject and had spoken with CM Price & others that were in attendance. He went on to ask for my impressions of the event.

His report was in Friday's Edition of the Tribune and can be read in it's entirety here:

http://www.news-tribune.net/local/local_story_242115303.html

What I found to be most interesting was Steve's stated response to the reporters inquiry after having witnesssed his out of the ballpark reaction at the meeting itself.

If I'm reading the paper correctly, it is now OKAY to have another "Barney Fife" runnin' round town with a clip board so long as he is properly hobbled.

Perhaps during Sunday's Service he saw the error of his ways and repented (at least partially!)

Perhaps there was a vocabulary lesson afterward to define "communication" which seems to be the watchword that came forth from Saturday's gathering.

Or perhaps, as my Daddy used to say "He just spittin' on his hands to take a new holt!'

Only time will tell.

At any rate, at least for my part, Daniel has done a good job getting the issue out in print for the public to see. It's just too bad he wasn't present for the live show.

Perhaps next time?