http://rutlandherald.com/article/20130817/NEWS02/708179921
A lawn sign urges Springfield voters to repeal the town’s rental registry ordinance next week. Photo: Photo by Len Emery Published August 17, 2013 in the Rutland Herald Selectman baffled by opposition to rental registry Springfield ready to vote on rental ordinance repeal By SUSAN SMALLHEER Staff Writer SPRINGFIELD — Kristi Morris says he is perplexed at the opposition to the town’s new rental registry ordinance. Morris, chairman of the Select Board, and one of the chief supporters of the ordinance, says the opposition from Springfield landlords baffles him. Springfield residents will go to the polls Tuesday in a special town meeting to decide whether to repeal the ordinance, adopted by the Select Board in June on a 3-2 vote. A public hearing is slated in the Springfield High School cafeteria Monday evening. Voting will be held Tuesday at Riverside Middle School cafeteria. Morris said he’s perplexed by the opposition because the most controversial part of the ordinance — the fire safety code — is already on the state books and applies to all apartments, which are subject to inspection. The rental registry was sought by Fire Chief Russell Thompson, who is also the town’s health officer. The registry would give firefighters more information at the scene of a fire, said Morris, who is also a call firefighter. The ordinance also calls for rental health inspections, to be conducted by the town. Morris said he understands the opposition from the Springfield Housing Authority. After dealing with federal regulations all day, he said, the organization might see another inspection as too much. The housing authority is Springfield’s largest landlord, controlling more than 300 of the 1,300 apartments in town. Bill Morlock, executive director of the Springfield Housing Authority, is one of the most outspoken opponents of the ordinance. “I’m in an overly-regulated business,” said Morlock, who said he didn’t want to subject his tenants to unnecessary, redundant inspections. Morlock said he has always tried to “fly under the radar” and has not sought publicity. But the ordinance, adopted by the town in June, was the last straw, he said. “They’re beating up on the good landlords,” he said. Morlock said he tried to work with the Select Board on the ordinance to exempt the housing authority’s apartments. The housing authority’s properties are already inspected by multiple agencies, he said, and their inspections are so good that the rentals are on a three-year schedule with federal agencies such as Housing and Urban Development and the Internal Revenue Service. But that didn’t cut any ice with the Select Board, Morlock said, refusing to say which board members he dealt with. Despite Morlock’s concerns, Morris, the board chairman, said the Springfield Housing Authority would be largely exempt from the ordinance. Selectman David Yesman, a local real estate agent and landlord, spearheaded the petition drive against the ordinance. He said Thursday in an interview that he supported having a simple, straightforward rental registry, but opposed another layer of inspection. He disagreed with Morris that the original impetus for the ordinance came from the town’s effort to crack down on negligent out-of-town landlords who were renting to people involved with drug trafficking. Yesman said the most effective way to crack down on run-down apartment houses was through the town’s ordinance dealing with dilapidated buildings. While the town has recently taken action under that ordinance against about a dozen properties, none of them are inhabited. Morris said he is concerned the ordinance will be defeated at the special town meeting, saying voter turnout will be very light for a late-summer meeting. The scheduling of the meeting was dictated by the repeal ordinance. Plus, he said, landlords are motivated to make sure the ordinance is defeated. Yesman said the landlords’ organization has already put out 100 printed signs urging a “yes” vote to defeat the ordinance, and he said the landlords met Thursday to discuss strategy. He said landlords will show up at Monday night’s hearing and also will launch a telephone campaign. The public hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday at Springfield High School cafeteria. Voting will be Tuesday at Riverside Middle School cafeteria from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Does it strike anyone as odd that a person who does not live in Springfield, who is not a private businessman, and whose job and occupation is totally dependent upon government revenues is the person leading the charge to repeal an ordinance adopted by the locally elected Selectboard, and he is being supported by a person whose main occupation is revenue from a government agency and owns apartments on the side with tenants supplied by the Department of Corrections? And they are trying to make this out as an ordinance which increases the size of government and raises taxes?
ReplyDeleteBut if you shut down the slumlords in Springfield where is the black market economy in hard drugs going to operate, and if you impede the black market in hard drugs who is going to employ all those people in the local rehabilitation industry. No we have to vote "Yes" and support our local slumlords, and keep our market in hard drugs in run down neighborhoods alive, this is just too much government regulation. Time to march! Not Safe Apartments Well Maintained Apartments in Our Town! Pass Out the Bracelets and help support those people who are hooked on revenue from the D.O.C. Its time folks the end of the world is upon us if they inspect apartments every half decade.
DeleteOn the face of it, this ordnance may increase the intrusion of government in some people's lives. However, for that faction of landlords and renters whose properties and dwellings are paid for by the government, then they shouldn't at all mind if the government seeks to invoke and enforce a standard of housing and safety on them. They that take from the government should welcome the government's involvement in their lives. If they don't wish the government to be involved, then they should just send the monthly checks back to the sender. The "government interest" lobby (or should we say mafia) is alive and well on all fronts today and they have one objective - direct the flow of government spending into their own pockets. The problem is that the Ponzi scheme they've relied on for the last 50 years is starting to collapse. Their quest to slay the capitalist goose laying the golden eggs and replace it with the socialist hog has progressed to the point where they are now realizing that there is indeed an end to the supply of other peoples money that is available for them to tax and spend on themselves. Open your doors wide you Section 8 landlords. You're getting what you deserve.
ReplyDeleteOh, but we wouldn't want to end the feedback loop. The D.O.C. needs temporary housing during periods when they aren't in jail. The slumlords provide very convenient housing for the druggies, and without the druggies whatever would the rehabilitation industry and all the non-profits do? Remember this is a stroke against big government, as to where their rent checks come from..."nothing to see here, move along..."
DeleteNOT IN OUR TOWN, unless of course they pay the rent then, weill its okay just send them to Union or Wall Street. And Mr. Yesman will make sure they have a nice uninpsected apartment to live in.
DeleteIf some of their rent is being paid for with government subsidies (which I'm sure it is), then this is a sacrifice you have to make to receive such "benefits." Deal with it. If you don't like it, take steps to better your life and get off assistance. It is called "assistance" because it's not supposed to be a way of life.
DeleteI'm voting No. This was asked for by our fire fighters - guys who risk everything when we need them most - and so I think it's the very least we can do. This town has experienced a spate of apartment fires that call our current inspection standards into question. I want our fire fighters to feel as safe as possible. The extra benefit to our residents makes it a win win.
ReplyDeleteVote NO to maintain the rental registry with mandated inspections.
ReplyDeleteInflated rates for Section Eight and subsidized housing are key to establishing rental fees. The town must put a lid on further low income apartments and let the free market set rental fees. Trust me, if being a landlord wasn't as lucrative as it is, you would see so many buildings converted into multi unit housing.
Vote NO and stop the making Springfield a magnet for slum lords.
Vote "No" if the Housing Authority wants you to vote "Yes", then it can't be a good idea. Something smells if they can't stand being inspected every 5 years. Vote "No" and stand up to the slumlords and drug dealers, don't let them take over the town.
ReplyDeleteThe only ones wanting to repeal the ordinance are the slum lords that are afraid that someone might make them accountable for the holes the are renting. It will cut into thier profits if they actually have to clean up and mow the yard, or *gasp* paint the building, let alone make sure it meets basic safety requirements every 5 years! What will they do!
ReplyDeleteMore government intrusion, more government regulations... Liberals are always "baffled" by opposition to those.
ReplyDeleteThis is not more government intrusion, it is enforcement of existing regulations. It was inspired after the druggies and gang wannabees started shooting up the Town--and it was realized they were being housed by slumlords. Annoymous 9:30 you want to support the liberals in not bothering people living in government subsidized housing with inspections like Mr. Morelock the housing authority director is complaining about?
DeleteThe $64,000.00 question is was Woody Bickford supporting or opposing the Referendum, if his thinking is represents the majority of Springfield voters, this referendum could end up a draw.
DeleteSo is $64,000.00 what it will cost the tax payers???
ReplyDelete