 |
| YES! man |
Voters repealed the new rental registry ordinance Tuesday by a 37-vote margin.
http://rutlandherald.com/article/20130821/NEWS02/708219878
Published August 21, 2013 in the Rutland Herald Rental registry ordinance repealed By SUSAN SMALLHEER Staff Writer SPRINGFIELD — Voters repealed the new rental registry ordinance Tuesday by a 37-vote margin. With only 11 percent of the registered voters going to the polls, the tally was 376-339 against the new registry. Selectman David Yesman, a local landlord and real estate agent who organized the petition drive against the new ordinance, said he was surprised at the margin of victory. “I guess that’s close enough,” Yesman said Tuesday night. “I thought it would be (passed) by a greater margin.” Yesman said he hoped the Select Board would take up the matter of a pared-down rental registry at its next board meeting Yesman and other landlords said the additional level of inspection and review — and hefty $800 a day potential fines — were unnecessary and counterproductive. The impetus for the new ordinance was a town effort to crack down on negligent landlords renting to less-than-desirable tenants. At Monday night’s public hearing on the controversial ordinance, which was only adopted in May, Yesman and other landlords said they supported having a registry, but not one tied to inspections by local and state officials. Kristi Morris, chairman of the Select Board, said he wasn’t surprised at the defeat but was disappointed at the low turnout. The timing of the special town meeting to repeal the ordinance was set by state law governing repeals, and the timing couldn’t have been worse, he said, with few people in town during the end of summer. “A high voter turnout was not in the cards,” he said, adding that he expected 300 more voters, or about 1,000 people to turn out. Morris and Selectman Michael Knoras said the board probably would not drop the idea of a registry, but would start work at its next meeting to craft something acceptable to the town. Morris said the board had two options, that the board could “drop it entirely” or send it back to the ordinance committee for discussion. Knoras and Selectwoman Stephanie Gibson Thompson serve on the ordinance committee, and Knoras said they got help from Town Manager Robert Forguites, Fire Chief Russell Thompson (no relation to the selectwoman), Town Attorney Stephen Ankuda and Zoning Administrator Bill Kearns, who is also an attorney. “We started this in January, it was adopted in May,” said Knoras, adding that it was not a quick review. Knoras said the now-dead ordinance combined several existing Springfield ordinances with the idea of a registry. Tuesday’s defeat does not repeal the other, older ordinances that deal with fire safety inspections. Morris said the state Division of Fire Safety still has the authority, along with the town’s health officer, to inspect any apartment. Many landlords who spoke at the hearing said they weren’t opposed to a registry of sorts and of the town fire department having a list of properties and the number of residents for fire-safety concerns. Yesman, who spearhead the move against the ordinance and voted against it in May, thanked his fellow landlords for banding together and fighting it. “I just wanted to thank everybody for their efforts. The landlords helped out tremendously with a lot of work and money,” he said.
I believe that we should send this right back for re-vote next year! It is obvious WHY the landlords don't want this simply because they would have to improve their properties. If that wwasn't the reason behind their drive then why worry? Really? Because you know your property will not pass. Inspections are part of doing business when you own rental property. In many ways these landlords are like the factory owners of the late 1800-1900's who used to run sweat shops and chain doors closed. If you remember they fought unions and organized labor so that they could keep unsafe working environments just as these landlords fought to repeal this registry so they could keep doing business with possibly unsafe properties. THERE IS A REASON use your brains springfield. As long as these slums remain and the level of renters they supply. You will live in a depressed unsafe crime ridden town.
ReplyDeleteYou know following Yesman's logic, one might conclude that it would be appropriate to bring a recall petition against Yesman this fall.
DeleteGenius, It's not about safety! It's about absurd zoning regs that make it impossible to legalize units!
DeleteIt's not about safety? Really? Why don't you take an inside tour of the apartment buildings on Union St near the school and then come back and post that it is not about safety. Take a really good look at the electrical, the staircases and the room size.
DeleteMany of these units should NOT be legalized and never should have been turned into apartments in the first place. These were single family homes that housed maybe 3-5 people. Now there are 10-15 people crammed into three dwellings with tiny rooms with the yards turned into parking lots and cars parked on the sidewalks.
High time the town rights the wrongs committed by our dear real estate agents who made this happen. At least one po these slums is slated for demolition and hoepfully the rest will follow if the "guys" (cough cough) and other owners are not prepared to make them habitable for human beings.
If you kept the law in place...
ReplyDeleteSo who decides what a slum & what's not
What's the decision making process here.
This law could easily be abused.
What I'm reading in the comments on this issue the past couple of days leads me to believe that the pro-registry people don't want any of these low income apts in town at all. Not every poor person is on drugs or selling them.
Maybe some of these people should relize that it probally their own kids who are the reason why these drugs dealers are in town anyways.
Or maybe the Prison is helping to draw the drugs in now?
Still think having the indoor pool is worth having the prison in town????
Who knows the real reason but some of you need to get off your high horses here.
No one is against have low to moderate income housing. There is a need to have SAFE housing for those on fixed incomes for legitimate reasons. Being to lazy to work or making an income from illegal activities should not be a reason. Landords should be required to have everything up to code. I would not be against inspection in my private residence because I know that I do what I must to keep my property up. You have to be a fool not to get that there are probably more unknown RENTAL properties in Springfield than known. Think about all the so called rooms being rented out and income being collected under the table. Then again the rat hole rooms above the Ellis Block before the fire were the Tahja Mahal and not what we are talking about right????
DeleteThat picture of Yesman really brings out the Cheney in him. I guess he's our own local version of old rich white man who thinks he can do whatever he wants.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least he was classy (or clueless)enough to thank all the landlords for their money. I wonder how much money they threw into the pot to make sure us poor-dumb citizens could be convinced of the error of our ways.
Thank you, Mr. Yesman, YesSir. Thank goodness for you and your kind ensuring that the rest of us understand what's good for us.
I have never rented a place I wouldn't live in myself. But when my renters move out, usually the place has been trashed. Sometimes to the tune of many thousands of dollars. One I had to rebuild. They would never report a leak until it has ruined a ceiling and two floors. We are trying to correct the problem by going after the wrong people. Just because our pockets are deeper. I had one renter, that another had complained about who created a filth hazard for all the other renters in just 6 weeks.
ReplyDeleteRich white man? So, you show your racism! More regulations are not the answer. If the government weren't paying the section 8 rent, then these places would either be empty or fixed up for folks to spend their own money for rent, instead of our money for rent. Cut back on SSI, disability payments, section 8, food stamps. Cut it all back and maybe these able bodied folks will find a way to support themselves for a change!!!!
ReplyDeleteAfter two well attended meetings, during which many people spoke against adopting the rental housing registry ordinance, four selectmen disregarded the expressed opinions of the public and Selectman David Yesman, and passed the ordinance. Yesman and others circulated a petition and forced a public vote on the ordinance. The voters repealed the ordinance, and now Yesman and other landlords are portrayed by the "anonymous" signers as slumlords etc.. Do I smell sour grapes, or is it something else?
ReplyDeleteHow much did the voting process cost the tax payers? If the "gang of four" selectmen had listened to the people who attended their meetings, the public would not have demanded a vote, and tax money would have been saved.
The Fire Dept. has all the tools it needs to protect Springfield's tenants. The Springfield grand list provides the Fire Dept. information about rental housing buildings in Springfield. Every landlord knows that the Fire Dept. can inspect rental housing units any time it chooses. So fire safety was not the core purpose of the ordinance. Expanding the employment of the Fire Dept was.
If the Fire Dept were to inspect every rental unit at least once every five years, and upon the sale of an apartment building or rental of each unit, the Fire Dept. would have needed to inspect more than a unit a day. It would also have had to keep records, do follow ups to be certain landlords complied with instructions, and to continually repeat the procedures. How many new positions would this work load have justified in the Fire Dept.? How much would the town tax rate have gone up to fund the new hires?
If readers believe fire safety was the core issue, ask the town manager why the town office building does not comply with the National Fire Safety Codes regarding exits, the direction the second floor exit door swings, and why that door is locked and the hall leading to it is dark when selectmen hold their meetings. The Town and those in favor of expanding government employment should make certain Springfield's public buildings are in compliance with relevant fire codes before blaming landlords for the dismal demographics of our correctional community.
When I became a landlord in 1978, I was informed by the Fire Dept. that it would not issue a written statement that any of my properties complied with the fire codes because that would force the Dept. to assume responsibility if a fire were to occur from some unnoticed defect or violation. If a landlord were to request a fire inspection by the Dept. now, would the Dept. issue a written statement that a buildings complied with the codes, if no violation was found? Has the Town discussed this issue with the Vermont League of Cites and Towns, and is the League ready to bear the burden of insuring the Fire Dept. against claims of negligence? The League has no money in reserve, and it is highly unlikely it will assume any liability for anything, unless forced by a court. So guess who would be left holding the bag? That's right: the taxpayers.
Can I hear a big Amen! Well writing and clear as a bell. AMEN!
DeleteExcept it's all false information. 25 Landlords do not represent the 9000 plus residents of Springfield, they represented their own interests. I believe also that Mr. Coughlin is getting the State Department of Labor and Industry and its capacity to initiate inspections in rental properties with the Springfield Fire Departments function. The Department of Labor and Industry initiates inspections and the Fire Department is sometimes, not all the time, invited to observe to be informed of the changes to some buildings. Its hard to believe that this discussion has gone from the zoning administrator, health officer/fire chief doing inspections to the whole fire department being involved, it never was and never will be the case.
DeleteChris are you saying that the statements were untrue that at the first two meetings zero comments were made, and only at the last meeting did anyone comment?
DeleteIt is sad that such an intelligent person as Mr. Coughflin can be so misinformed and incorrect about the FD.
Delete"The Fire Dept. has all the tools it needs to protect Springfield's tenants. The Springfield grand list provides the Fire Dept. information about rental housing buildings in Springfield. Every landlord knows that the Fire Dept. can inspect rental housing units any time it chooses."
DeleteWith all due respect the Fire Department has authority to INSPECT anytime it wants to. However it has zero power to ENFORCE. IF the result of a Fire Department inspection reveals that the unit is in violation, the landlord oops I mean slumlord is free to thumb his/her nose at the Fire Marshall and continue putting his/her tenants at risk.
Unfortunely Mr. Coughlin has a personal axe to grind with the town & fire department (we have heard it from him at a number of meetings).
DeleteScore one for the slumlords. Nice going there Dave.
ReplyDeleteWill he sleep well knowing that firefighters would have a very hard time navigating the tiny rooms and steep staircases with broken banisters just a few houses down the road from his properties? Will it take death by fire or smoke inhalation to wipe that smile off his face?
burning down the house better
DeleteWhy is it big cities don't have this intrusive rent registries yet a small town feels the need to know the exact layout and renter profile of each rental profile?
ReplyDeleteFlame me if you will but I'm really curious how this will really help all parties involved.
Because we don't live in or want to live in big cities, big cities are annonymous little cities in Vermont are not. Comprehend?
DeleteActually many small and medium sized cities DO have rental registries. They aren't hard to find either.
ReplyDeleteBut, but, the Selectboard didn't personally call me and ask my opinion before daring to pass an Ordinance. Don't they understand that I have to personally approve every ordinance they pass? Why its simply outrageous that they didn't call me ... so I think that I will circulate a petition for a referendum everytime they fail to call me before passing an ordinance. Do they think I have the time to read notices in the paper or all the newspaper articles about the ordinance before they vote. I am special, they should have called me before passing an ordinance, of all the nerve.
ReplyDeleteYou don't deserve a special phone call until you wear as many hats as Wendi Germain. Once you are heading up the anti-drug campaign, are on the diversionary justice board, are on the Turning Point Board of Directors, and own half-way houses being utilized by the Prison to release convicts into our community, then you get a special telephne call. Until then Boss Hogg, you just do not rate a special telephone call or the support of the Housing Director. You have to have a clear understanding of conflicts of interest like Mr. Yesman does. So quit being snarky.
DeleteBut, but, you don't understand that I am the honored opinion generator in Town, doesn't that count right up there with being the largest landlord in Town? So they really should have given me a personal telephone call so that I could have given them my input outside of a public meeting and thereby improved the ordinance. Yes, this failure to pander with special contacts outside the regular public meeting is very important to keeping Springfield the way it currently is. Where is your Springfield pride? Why the status quo has rendered us one of the most beautiful armpits in Vermont -- we need to have the Selectboard making all of its deals outside of the public meetings and they would be best served by just giving me a personal phone call so I can tell them exactly what they should or should not do, otherwise I will have no recourse except to circulate referendum peititions.
DeleteOSHA rules regarding workplace toilet facility requirements are described at the following website:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=22932&p_table=INTERPRETATIONS
Note that mobile workplace locations, such as fire locations become for fire dept. employees, are required to have rapid transit available for all employees to access toilets which meet regulations. This requirement is difficult to meet when fire fighting.
I became aware of the issue when my neighbor's barn burned a few years ago. Five fire fighting companies responded to fight the barn fire, but not a drop of water had been put on the barn fire or any on the Carey House, which was steaming and the vinyl siding was melting, as Mrs. Carey wetted it down with a garden hose.
Our fire chief was concerned about electrical lines running along the right side of the driveway, so trucks were kept at the end of Linhale Drive's pavement, but no hose was pulled along the Carey driveway to assist Mrs. Carey wet down her home. Nor was water pumped from her pond.
My house is next door, and twice a desperate Chester fireman asked to use my bathroom toilet, because as he explained, he didn't think Mrs. Carey would allow any firemen to use hers! When the firefighter left my bathroom, I said that in all my years of watching fire trucks rush to fight fires, it never occurred to me that some of the fire fighters were desperate to use a toilet. The fireman replied it was an effect of adrenaline.
I am curious if Springfield's Fire Dept. has a policy regarding work site sanitation? This issue should be aired out and measures taken to prevent adjacent property owners from being imposed upon when Springfield's Fire Dept. responds to a fire call, and the fire fighters must respond to nature's call!.
Well since you want to reference a story which has nothing to do with the rental registry lets make sure we tell the facts. The gentlemen that was so badly burned was using Naptha a highly volatile and flammable fluid used to make camp stove kerosene which enables it to combust relatively low temperatures and fairly easy. So the fact that a structure was fully engulfed and there was a badly burned victim was not reason enough for the Fire Chief to decide that he was not going to have vehicles drive right up to the door and put anyone else in harms way util he knew what they were dealing with not good enough for you???? Get real Mr. Coughlin!!! Oh and by the way you attended what fire academy??? Or are you just one of those folks that believe you throw water on everything????
DeleteAnother SFD apologist heard from... View the Springfield Barn Fire video and note the complete lack of a response to the incident by the guy allegedly in charge (doesn't deserve the other title). "Explanations" like that above are attempts at revise the history and provide cover for SFD's mistakes.
DeleteAnother of Springfield's excentrics heard from.
DeleteWell of course we should talk about regulations that apply to industries and businesses, when discussing the residential rental registry and inspection ordinance. Makes perfect sense to discuss someone using solvents in refurbishing industrial machinery. Why it is clearly connected with residential issues.
DeleteWhen a lady is forced to wet down her own house to preserve it, as the personnel from five fire fighting companies simply stand by and watch, or seek toilet facilities in the neighborhood, it raises concerns among neighbors and fellow tax payers. If the lady had been in danger, why was she not rescued and removed? If it was safe enough for her to stand in her yard with a hose, it was safe enough for a fully equipped fireman to do the same.
DeleteNo, I don't believe "you pour water on everything", but I do believe turn about is fair play. I especially enjoy exposing those who attempt to subject me and other tax payers to new rules and arbitrary fines as having failed in their responsibility to follow federal and state fire safety and sanitation rules already in force.
Springfield's managers responsible for following and enforcing federal codes and rules that apply to commercial buildings and work place santitation have not done so. The Town's office building does not meet the fire codes for commercial buildings. When repeated orders by the State of Vermont to install sanitation facilities at Springfield's recycle center were repeatedly ignored, the Town of Springfield was fined many thousands of dollars by the state. Guess who paid the fine? The tax payers! It should have been deducted from our management's payroll.
I have also pointed out lack of sanitation equipment furnished our fire fighters when on a fire call. State and federal fire safety and sanitation rules in force should be followed to the letter by the Town and its employees before a new set of rules and fines is imposed on the general public.
Oh GOD I love these blue collar winners who think they are important and are some kind of expert because they attended a fire academy....baaahaaa
DeleteIt is very important that Mr. Coughlin be allowed these very long venting sessions so that we can improve residential fire safety in Springfield. Without these venting session he might spontaneously combust, and we wouldn't want that. Now where was I, it is also important that we continue to not enforce the building and health codes with respect to rental units in Springfield. Just look at what a mess the U.S. Forest Service created by suppressing fires all those years, without regular occurring apartment fires how could we expect the Jack Pines to sprout and remember by suppressing forest fires all those years they almost caused the Sequoia to go extinct. You need to understand that periodic apartment catastrophes are important to the renewal Springfield. It makes the Town seem real, we wouldn't want it to go all Stepford on us now would we. Its all part of natural progression, sturdy boarding house, decrepit boarding house, derelict apartment house, drug den, fire, boarded up burned out building, vacant lot, trash accumulation, pocket park, etc. Its all about maintaining the realness ambience of Springfield wait long enough and the problem obviously cure itself.
DeleteAnd this is relevant how???? Why would the admin post since this is not on topic.
ReplyDeleteFavoritism
ReplyDeleteCoughlin has a hard time separating fantasy from realism. He wants to be a community leader here in the little town of Springfield because he knows he would be chewed up and spit out in any larger town or city as he tries to spread his illogical thoughts.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone seen the Facebook page that the Springfield Police maintains where they requested that whoever stapled all those "vote no" signs to telephone poles (which by the way is illegal) please take them down?
ReplyDeleteHow much would anyone care to bet that the slumlords who don't give a hoot about their tenants also don't give a hoot about removing what now now become their trash from the town they are making so much money from?
Great point Jean, except that in your haste to post a negative comment here the thought process was not in place. It was the "slumlords" that wanted us to vote "yes". And it appears that they invested in signs that were professionally done, the type stood alone on personal / private property lawns. Now that you mention it I must say I don't think I've seen one of those vote yes signs since the vote.
DeleteDoes this mean the folks that wanted the "no" vote don't give a "hoot"? Guess I'll take that bet, in cash of course, no EBT cards!
Are you suggesting that the slumlords don't care about the quality of life in Springfield? Why how heartless of you! I am sure that amounts to profiling of some sort. They are an integral part of community life providing comfort and shelter to those forced to participate in the black market economy. They have helped to reinvent Springfield with a new ambience and culture. Just because their renters are too stoned to shoot straight doesn't mean that we should discriminate against them when it comes to housing. Why Yesman truly has the community's interest at heart looking out for those oppressed landlords who provide cheap unsafe shelter for people that otherwise might invest other communities. He needs our support, just look at the community leaders like Bill Morelock and Wendy Germain who rallied to his support!
DeleteGee Ned, sorry that I messed that up. You are right and the cops also got it bass-ackwards.
ReplyDeleteThe fact remains that Yesman chooses to use his position as a selectboard member to shield slumlords who rent dangerous dwellings for the sake of profit.
And a little birdie tells me that the town slumlords sent out letters to their tenants to get them to vote "no" (hehe this time I got it right) in their own interest. After all, it would be horrible, I mean just horrible if some inspector were to come traipsing through their apartment and find out the wiring is faulty, the stairs are rickety, the paint is peeling, right?
Care to meet me on Union St near the school sometime? I'll be delighted to show you what the new normal is in town.
Well at least the signs will be down now after the torrential rain only to form molten piles of litter on the sidewalks.
Delete