Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Landlords question fee change

December 12, 2013

SALEM — Landlords Geoff Goll and David Halverstadt questioned the need for an increase to the annual housing occupancy fee charged by the city for rental units, speaking out against the proposal......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(48)

KsBug79

Dec-16-13 11:17 AM

Watchdog, if you're still reading, the money is not to help the police & fire depts. It's to generate enough funds to hire another housing inspector in that dept. Supposedly the one guy they have had for the last 3 yrs. is too busy with paperwork to actually get out and do the leg work. That's his story anyway. So insteadof the city putting another person on with their own funds, they are charging the landlords to be able to afford another person.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-15-13 6:57 PM

I don't know any more about the Fire Code.

But I will agree with you that gov finds it a lot easier to paint with a very very wide brush and make sweeping decrees rather than try to pinpoint the exact place where there might be a specific problem they need to address. And I disagree with that as well.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-14-13 7:40 PM

questioner I wasn't aware of the live tree law. Do you happen to know exactly where in the ORC that is located? I wonder if it specifically says live Christmas trees or if someone has interpreted it that way? Just a thought,if they can band them in businesses,it won't be long till they are band in private homes. I wonder what makes them safer in homes where people can leave them lite and go to bed, than they are in a public place where people are always awake and no one is sleeping there?? It is just a step in process. It is like the old frog in a pan of water on the stove the heat gets turned up a little at a time and the frog don't notice it until it is too late. America needs to wake up. It is like the rental inspections it is the first step in inspections of all homes. Get people use to rental inspections the next logical step is inspections in all places because only big brother can keep you safe you know. Live trees should be band in rentals those folks need regulated right?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-14-13 11:47 AM

And, concerned, like we tell Grant about marijuana, the laws are there. They are to be obeyed or changed. If not changed, obeyed.

Disagree with the law, but don't disagree with the enforcing of it.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-14-13 11:40 AM

Do I like that some of those places can't have a live tree?--No.

Do I think it's unconstitutional to forbid it?--No.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-14-13 11:37 AM

Nov.27, 2013: SALEM - The Salem Fire Department is reminding businesses, organizations and churches that live Christmas trees are forbidden in most public places, including the hallways or lobbies of apartment buildings.

According to the fire department press release (from the Ohio Fire Code), live Christmas trees are not permitted in the following places: churches, schools, restaurants, bars or taverns, banquet halls, theaters, libraries, day care facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, convalescent facilities, group homes, department stores, drug stores, markets, retail stores, funeral homes, skating rinks and other places of amusement.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-13-13 5:02 PM

A business can't have a live tree? Says who? And you don't see anything wrong with that??? I was not saying there were not laws on the books that allow these inspections. But in my opinion the laws are contrary to the constitution. Here in lays the problem. We have a bunch of legislators that totally ignore the federal and state constitutions. They make laws that they think are right in their own eyes and ignore the constitution. Just because a law is on the books does not mean it is constitutional. Laws get shot down all the time for not being constitutional. If one has enough money they could fight a lot of laws. What I find to be sad is we don't have legislators that have an understanding and/or respect for that document. It has all but been shredded by people that claim they are doing good and think they know more than our founding fathers.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-13-13 4:21 PM

No, but I am saying there are different laws for businesses than for private property. (A church can't have a live Christmas tree, an apartment building can't in their lobby--but I can in my foyer)

A renter unit is a business. Yes, someone's home, but it is a special category. Read the Landlord and Tenant Rights Under Ohio Law.

LANDLORDS MUST: Comply with all housing laws and regulations which seriously affect health and safety. - Most local governments have housing inspectors who can inspect conditions and cite landlords for any violations, condemn property unfit for habitation, and prosecute landlords who refuse to comply with housing code requirements.

Give reasonable notice, at least 24 hours, before entering tenants' apartments

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-13-13 3:42 PM

Questioner So you think it is the governments responsibility to make sure everything is safe. Am I understanding you correctly? Gee I learned something I was not aware that the constitution was only written for landowners. I think your understanding of the constitution and mine are not the same. I believe when it says "We the People" it means just that not "We the Landowners" I am sorry but I don't think of renters as second class citizens with fewer rights than those fortunate enough to own property.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-13-13 3:36 PM

And yes, I do know the number of people isn't what's inspected, nor if there are rats.

But would a non-English-speaking short-term resident know that there should be smoke alarms, etc?

I was trying to say that when you see the outside and the number living there, that maybe some assumptions can be made about the conditions they are living in. (Maybe not, maybe the inside is all up to code--but do you really really think it is?)

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-13-13 3:28 PM

And yes, I do think legally a renter has fewer rights in this regard than a homeowner. (And obviously, I think the building owner has less rights for his apartment than for his home.)

Does it help if I say I see a rental unit being a business? And businesses are subject to inspections that my private home is not. (But if I put in a bed and breakfast--new rules cuz I'm a business in my home.)

Speaking of, what are the rules if I have a day care in my home? Wouldn't the whole home have to be inspected, not just the area kids are in? (I don't know that answer--just assuming) But I would hope someone made sure there were smoke alarms all throughout.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-13-13 3:21 PM

We're not gonna agree on this one. I'd don't equate a building inspection to "unreasonable searches and seizures".

And I see a difference between a home, a business and rental property.

Do I think there should be notice given? For sure. Should the renters be there? I would. Should there be limits on what is inspected and how intrusive it is--yes. I mean, in closets, even in bedrooms isn't necessary (altho I'd say if there were wiring problems other places, then in the bedroom might be necessary). But they don't examine every socket in every room.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-13-13 3:15 PM

Questioner Guess what. The number of people that live in a house is not something that is checked. I don't think they do any checking for rodents either. The tenants do have the right to move if they don't like the way the property is kept. So again if someone owns the building they live in, are you saying it is ok for them to live in those conditions that you describe, without any inspections and that the government should not be able to check your house because you have your rights,, but if you rent that house, then it is ok to invade your privacy as renters don't have rights. Is that right?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Dec-13-13 3:05 PM

There are some many people dying in their homes from unsafe conditions that an inspector clearly could have pointed out that I can't believe we aren't all bowing down to ladybug the demigod!!! DUH! Just look at the statistics, they're dying by the millions, right here in little old Salem Ohio!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-13-13 3:02 PM

Questioner, So are you saying that if you rent, you do not have any rights to privacy under the constitution?

OK ladybug I will send out the Perry Twp. zoning officer to check out your house one day next week. We can't trust you to make sure your family is safe, we have to protect you.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-13-13 3:01 PM

I have to say, when I see some of the residences for Guatamalans, and see how many seem to reside in them, I have more concerns than their right to privacy in having no one inspect the premises.

Who is looking after their right to live/sleep in safety? To have decent bath/kitchen/water supplies? To have a smoke alarm?

Would they know their rights? Would they be able to move to better conditions? If they live in a house with vermin, do they know that is not how it should be?

I think the potential for someone to be a slumlord when it comes to renting to someone from another country who is here short-term is way too great. I think we need to make sure of other rights of those renters.

If that makes me a socialist, so be it.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-13-13 2:52 PM

concerned, my home is my private property. The apt I rent when mad at my husband (just joking, not a true scenario) is not my private property, but someone else's property. Not the same.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-13-13 2:42 PM

You overlooked one point concerned. " unreasonable "

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-13-13 2:39 PM

of like the company who puts the dangerous chemicals back or the ones who put chains on the exit doors after the fire dept leaves right.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-13-13 2:38 PM

Personally I can't can't see the issue.But everyones entitled to their views.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-13-13 2:35 PM

Concerned I think your smoking something.

Of course as a renter you would rather live under possible unsafe conditions .Fine,

This is for the protection of the renters ,not the landlord.

I know of a person whose dsughter couldn't even get the landlord to fix the toilet ,

That's right ! Just move is your answer

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-13-13 2:04 PM

Even when those things are checked it does not mean as soon as the inspector leaves the batteries come out of the smoke detector and the fire extinguisher is buried back in the closet. Sometimes tenants even throw the smoke detectors away. In all reality what good do the inspections actually do. They certainly don't do what those that support them think they are doing. It is just more government that is invading the lives of we the people.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-13-13 1:58 PM

Questioner, I don't doubt the law is written that way, but that does not make the law constitutional. If you read article 1v closely I believe one could take it that a search of some one's home requires a warrant and that warrants can not be issued except where there is probably cause. Where is the probably cause when the government inspects private property? Like I have said many times the inspections that are done do not address the issues those that support these inspection or use as an excuse to perform the inspections. Even it was constitutional, how often do hand rails, ground fault plugs in kitchen and bath and smoke detectors and fire extinguishers need to be checked? Because that is about all that is checked.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-13-13 1:41 PM

concerned, I'm copying something I found:

while the landlord has a right of reasonable entry – to make an inspection, to make repairs, the show the premises to a prospective new tenant – except in the case of an emergency, landlords are advised to notify the tenant and reach a mutually acceptable agreement about the specific time of entry. Some county and municipal housing or liva bility codes provide that upon receiving reasonable notice , tenants must give the owner or operator access to the premises at reasonable times for making inspections, repairs, alterations, etc., as need ed to comply with the provisions of the code.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-13-13 1:33 PM

Bill of right IV "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I guess this don't matter to you Ladybug!!!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 48 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web