LETTER TO THE EDITOR By: Brad Linzy
I would like to take this opportunity to come out in stark opposition to ORDINANCE NO.-G–2013–3-introduced by Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley, also known as An Ordinance Providing for Licensing of Residential Rental Buildings in the City of Evansville, Indiana.
The reasons for my opposition are simple and are based on an analysis of the causes of the behavior and circumstances the Ordinance seeks to curb, along with a critical examination of the stated purpose of the proposed Ordinance through the lens of economic principles.
According to the preamble for this Ordinance, the purpose is as follows: “…To increase the quality of life of residents by partnering the City with landlords and property managers to decrease the incidents of public safety violations and criminal activity in Residential Rental Buildings…†Let us unpack this sentence carefully so as not to be confused about what “problems†this Ordinance claims to solve. Firstly, I fail to see how placing an additional economic and bureaucratic hurdle in front of landlords will in any way achieve the stated aim of “increasing the quality of life of residentsâ€. Indeed, how will charging a landlord a fee for licensure to exercise what should be his right – to join in a private contractual arrangement in a free market exchange – bring about the imagined scenario wherein he will suddenly wish to invest more capital into an Evansville property? It is more likely the case that such requirements will drive out capital rather than invite it in, and already his capital has diminished to the tune of $50 for the year.
Now some of my contemporaries might say, and indeed have said, that such licensure is necessary to stop the evil, so-called “slumlords†from taking advantage of the poor souls with whom they do business. Even if this did have the effect of lessening the presence of “slumlordsâ€, which it very well could, that would not be an altogether good thing for several reasons.
The truth of the matter is the types of residences we are talking about here that get lumped into the “slum†category, are often the only kinds of housing the people who live in them can afford. The less than ideal conditions that often accompany such places are a direct result of the lack of investment capital the owner has put into them for things like central air, new paint, new windows, etc. If the owner had invested more money for repairs and better provisions, the rent would need to increase in a proportional manner to offset the capital investment, effectively pricing this segment of society out of the market.
The net effect of driving these so-called “slumlords†out of business would be that more low income people would be forced into larger, more easily segregated public housing complexes and the old properties of the slumlords will fall into such disrepair without any tenants that the City can then either condemn the buildings through code violations and tear them down, or they will be given the opportunity to buy them up for pennies on the dollar and gentrify the area. One reason police might tend to like, and back, such schemes is that this policy will tend to concentrate their problem areas into the large, easy to patrol public housing units.
Now let’s look at the other stated goal in the preamble to this Ordinance: “to decrease the incidents of public safety violations and criminal activityâ€.
Proponents of this measure use the argument that partnership between police and landlords will teach the landlords how to how to evict unruly tenants by making contractual clauses of “one strike, you’re out†and weed out potential problem tenants during the application process. This they argue will make a participating complex or neighborhood safer. While there might be a measure of truth to that argument, one cannot forget that refusing to house a bad apple in one particular complex does not extinguish the problem. The bad apple will still need housing elsewhere in the City. This hardly reduces criminal activity. It merely moves its epicenter.
Under a scheme of gentrification such as this, the bad apples will coalesce largely within aforementioned public housing complexes, effectively turning them into concentrated gangland areas or prisons with no walls. The other effect that often goes completely unnoticed is the effect on children forced to grow up in these conditions. As victims of circumstances which are no fault of their own, they are forced to grow up in the new public housing slums government has created for them with a higher concentration of bad apples surrounding them than they ever would have experienced under the old “slumlord†paradigm. At least under the “slumlord†scheme, they had a reasonable chance at living in a single family home in a half decent neighborhood. Not so under this government enforced gentrification scheme disguised as “licensingâ€.
The final argument against such a scheme is that this is simply an abridgment of the freedoms of the people of the City of Evansville to choose for themselves which type of dwelling they prefer to live in – a public housing project, or a single family home some might consider a “slumâ€. In the final analysis, government is deciding what’s best for people and limiting their options. Whether this is done with the ultimate aim of gentrification in mind, or whether it is done out of a sincere desire to do what’s best for their constituents, the end result will be the same. Due to the additional hurdles imposed, private capital investment in housing will drop in this City, requiring even more government interventions in the local housing market in the future, and that thing which should be the bane of poor and working class people everywhere will rear its ugly head in the City of Evansville – gentrification.
FOOTNOTE: A hearing will be held on this measure on Wednesday, February 27th. I urge all City Council Members to strike this measure down and reaffirm to their constituents they do indeed carry their best interests at heart. I urge all citizens to call upon your elected officials to say “no†to gentrification in your communities and “yes†to your freedom to choose.
CITY COUNTY OBSERVER EDITOR WANTS TO STRESS WE HAVE POSTED THIS LETTER SENT TO THE US MR. LINZY WITHOUT OPINION, EDITING OR BIAS!
Mr. Linzy
If you lived next door or across the street from a multi-family dwelling in the Pigeon Township you might think differently. In the last few years there have been instances in which prostitutes have taken residence in neighborhoods near downtown, as well as meth labs on the roofs of apartment buildings. Some of the landlords of these buildings have encouraged not only prostitution, but also the sale of illegal drugs. Numerous dwellings have been destroyed by exploding meth labs. If you would like to live in one of these neighborhoods I will gladly give you a tour sometime after dark on a Saturday night.
Dr.J
There are currently sufficient laws on the books to deal with the situations you describe. What seems to be lacking is a stricter enforcement of those existing laws.
I am assuming the city still has laws about maintaining a common nuisance. Likewise, insurance companies might wish to be notified of meth making convictions in buildings they insure.
__
It looks like the cops are not being very successful at doing their jobs. A landlord who is encouraging prostitution and drugs is also known as a criminal unless pimping and pushing are now legal in Evansville. The city needs to provide their basic services in an acceptable way before forcing themselves on anything.
It would be extremely helpful to have a copy of the license agreement before us for examination.
I do not see how it would be prudent to vote for a “license” that no one has seen.
__
I am also at a loss to figure out why a special meeting was called for Wednesday. Why does the council feel it necessary to fast tract this ordinance?
__
evidently the legislature is considering a law to have an embargo on this kind of thing that will be retroactive to Thursday
Is it true that Monty Fetter and his buddies are charging other landlords around $200 a year to be in the landlord club they call POMA? Is it true that this ordinance will undercut them since it would only cost $50 a year? Is it true that ordinance is designed to hold landlords accountable for the property they profit from? Is it true that without this ordinance, the properties owned by absentee landlords will continue to be nuisence properties because there is no way to take enforcement action on an invisible people or companies. Is it true that these nuisence properties are bought and sold so many times that without this ordinance there is no way to know who owns them? Is it true that $50 a year is the most you will pay regardless of the number of properties you own? Is is true that those who oppose this are not conserved about paying $50, but are worried about losing thousands they collect from other landlords? Is it true that the council chambers were packed with people who want this ordinance because they live in areas affected by this problem? Is it true the landlords that oppose this live far away from the properties they rent?
Last I checked, you had to apply for a deed to land you’ve per chased in this State. Their information should already be on file. If its not in the registry, they don’t technically own it.
Is it true…”that without this ordinance, the properties owned by absentee landlords will continue to be nuisence properties because there is no way to take enforcement action on an invisible people or companies.” (inquiring mind)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There is no such thing as an “invisible person or company” in this state. Companies must list with the Indiana Secretary of State and contact information must be on file. State and local tax information is another source of information available to law enforcement.
But you have to have the WILL to go after these people regardless of who they are, or how well connected they are.
___
I don’t think Monte and “his club” are the problem landlords.
Who in their right mind would want to pay $200 if there was a program that only cost $50. Monty may not be the problem as far as a specific property, but allowing the people affected by the nuicence proerties to remain in that situation just so you can keep charging people money to be in your club is a problem.
Again, how many of the people that are opposed to this live in or near the properties that are not maintained or have a revovling door of criminals? As long as the rent is paid, some do not care how the money is made.
Are the cops able to catch them all? Absolutely not.Why is that? I guess it’s like a professioanl fisherman. No matter how much the guy wants to cath the fish, no matter how much equipment he brings to catch the fish, and no matter how long he has been doing it, the pro fisherman never catches all the fish. Some days though, all that desire, equipment, and experince pay off. Same with the cops.
If the landlords want to make money from the property, then they are ultimately responsible for it. If any other business that makes money was continually causing issues in your neighborhood, would you only hold the employee responsible, or would you think the owner that is making a profit should be held accountable too?
The comparison between the POMA fees and the fees under the new Multi-Housing Crime program are a bad comparison. One is voluntary…the other is not. One is for tenants, the other is for landlords. Apples…oranges.
You have additionally implied that the new startup group, POMA is allowing a nuisance somehow and they are not. They have done nothing wrong and have been helping to build a database of problem tenants to track in town with other landlords. They have been working with UNOE and the City of Evansville on this problem. Their work is still relatively new and has not matured enough to be fruitful yet.
The next comparison you made was between an employee of a business and a tenant of a house. This another poor comparison as a tenant is not paid by the landlord…it is the other way around. Whereas an employee does get paid and there are certain expectations that must be met for that payment. And in the event those expectations are not met, the employee is fired! Whereas in a tenant/landlord relationship, the landlord must notify the tenant of eviction (while allowing the questionable condition to continue to exist) and the process can take up to 2 months. So, in the mean time…this “bad landlord” has his hands tied and he must wait for his bad tenant to leave. Further contributing to the neighborhood problems.
So where does this tenant go? To the next landlord down the street…right? To completely ignore this fact is to ignore the core of the problem. That we have done nothing but shuffle the bad tenants around town.
Ff
The fees are not part of the crime free program. As for this information POMA gathers, how much are they charging to have access to it?
Just to make it clear, I have no association with POMA. I have no opinion of their organization other than to say one of my first thought for how property owners and managers might get around the fee would be to form an organization and pool resources and homogenize. That seems to be possible under this law, so long as they elect a board and have someon who can be contacted. All these extra efforts could still cost a lot of time and incorporation fees.
why not you seem to have an opinion about everything else.
Another one of Mayor Winnenke “stupid pie in the sky brainless idea!
I bet this ordinance was crafted by none other than the Mayors Chief of Staff.
SBR, while very a personable lady, is politically in step with Obama’s socialist ideas. The more government regulation they can establish, the better they feel about their governmental power to control us.
Mainstreet…do you feel the same way about the smoking ordinance?
It is my understanding that police Chief Bolin has been rallying neighborhood organizations across the City to support this Ordinance. Can anyone corroborate this?
At least one person I know of has signed on for support of this Ordinance under the false pretenses presented by Chief Bolin or their fellow neighborhood watch members. Have others experienced this as well?
Brad,
It amazes me how much you know about things you know nothing about.
To answer your question, I can corroborate this – I have been reaching out to the neighborhood associations because they are in support of what we are doing and they have the FACTS.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but to claim that I’m lying is flat out wrong. I have been in contact with the CCO and they are going to print a letter from me stating the FACTS. I will not engage in one of your tit for tat arguments on this forum though. I’m very approachable and open so I’m not sure where your attacks come from, I sent you a lunch invite a couple of weeks ago to no response. If you truly wanted to make a difference in our community, you would think you would take me up on the offer.
Billy Bolin
Interesting. I do not recall such a lunch invite from you.
“False pretenses” was a poor choice of words on my part. I’m sure you sincerely believe in what you say, but you are wrong about the end results of these types of programs. This will not do what you are telling people it will do.
I sent you a facebook message on Jan 29.
And once again, I haven’t told anyone that it will do anything, have you heard me say this? Do you have a recording of me saying this? Do you have a name of someone that will say I told them what the end results would be? What I have told people is that the program has had great success in other communities and we HOPE to do the same here.
I checked my Facebook. I have no record of a January 29th message from you. I’m not saying you didn’t send one, I’m just saying I do not have it in my records.
As for what you’re claiming this Ordinance will do or not do… I will not betray who told me that, because it was told to me in confidence, however I will say that I fail to see how you could possibly be trying to sell this Ordinance to the Neighborhood Associations without at least telling them what you expect this Ordinance to do.
You say you’ve used the words “hope” in describing Ordinance locally and “success” in describing the Ordinance in other cities, but the word “success” itself tells me you have an expectation of a function this Ordinance will serve and a bar set which will, in your mind, measure success. Can you provide any empirical data or anecdotal evidence to back up this claim of “success” in other cities?
Officer Bolin,
I am 50-50 on this piece of legislation. I see some good things that I would like to see implemented but I also see some bad things that I think could/should be left out of the legislation.
I would like to see all of the facts from you before I decide one way or the other because I feel that you and your department know first hand what could help and what could hurt these neighborhoods that we so desperately need to fix, maintain, and improve.
Please send me an email sometime at JordanBaer1@gmail.com. Or, I can meet you sometime before 2 pm Wed,Thrs, or Fri of this week. Thanks!
Call him and ask.
EVANSVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY: Financials
December 31, 2011
OPERATING REVENUES
PROGRAMS:
LOW RENT SECTION 8 OTHER TOTAL
Dwelling Rent…………. $2,172,178………….. $71,091..$2,243,269
Excess Utilities………. $182,460……………………… $182,460
HUD Subsidy&Grant Income$2,087,276..$8,914,236..$2,637,752..$13,639,264
Earned Section 8 Admin.Fees…………………..$762,300…. $762,300
Operating Transfers…………………………………………….
Other Income…………….. $182,504..$36,704..$1,345,461..$1,564,669
Total Income……….. $4,624,418..$9,713,240..$4,054,304..$18,391,962
Well, the figures did not transfer very well, but you can see that at the end of 2011 the EHA had $18,391,962 in revenue to expend on low rent, Section-8, and “other” residential housing.
A lot of that revenue finds its way into the hands of the type of landlord being discussed on this thread.
At one point in time I thought Evansville was seeking to expand its public housing even beyond the $18.4 Million 2011 figure. Again, all these landlords are known to EHA and HUD, who write the checks the landlords receive. Someone is cashing those checks.
___
The problem with allowing sub-standard housing is that it endangers others lives. A lot of houses in this town were built so close together that one can barely walk between the 2 houses. The problem is that when the sub-standard house develops electrical problems, it not only burns down but it talks 3 or 4 more houses with it.
That is not to mention that diseases are spread by rats or that its not good to have a baby crawling around when there is a hole in the floor.
So, I disagree with Brad Linzys’ assessment that we need to keep these houses so the poor will have a place to live.
Every old motel that couldn’t make it in this town is full of Section-8 renters. We are not talking about “houses” here. We are talking about a bed and a bath, and we are talking some long term residents.
The more money that leaves this community via the boat, the more you taxpayers can expect to shell out for public housing. Its all connected and the wage earners and home owners are footing the bill.
___
Take a peek here:
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/images/hudimg?id=Net_Cost.jpg
You will be amazed how much of your federal taxes goes for Section-8 housing!
___
As others have already pointed out, even without this ordinance there are already remedies in place for everything you just mentioned. But you and I both know we are not talking about old wiring here or bubonic plague rats, those situations are already covered under other ordinances. We are talking about properties that look bad and lack up to date amenities and therefore put caps on property values in the neighborhood.
This is classic gentrification, and not only will it make the situation in these neighborhoods worse, it will have the net effect of creating ghost towns and islands of nothing.
Comments are closed.