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-12-13 10:43 AM

Huh, the Republicans don't like the Repulicans charging higher "taxes" against them, imagine that!!

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Dec-12-13 2:11 PM

I happen to think this is a brilliant plan! Kudos Mayor Berlin and City Council. Funding for our police and fire departments, now that is change I can get behind. In fact, that change will actually benefit all of us in the long run. When crime rates are up and excessive fires cause insurance rates to grow, all homeowners suffer higher insurance rates.

Wow, this might actually help to lower those insurance rates in our community and save all residents money. Heck, even rental insurance rates would come down. So even tenants are going to save money. This is a good deal!

Since it appears we have cheapskates landlords like Goll and Halverstadt that are worried about their profits, they will undoubtedly will dump that extra $15.00 a year onto their tenants, it only amounts to a rental monthly rate increase of a $1.25. We already know they make their tenants pay for the original $15.00 charge and already included in their rental rates.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Dec-12-13 2:11 PM

As for the other increased charges, ole Goll and Halverstadt shouldn't worry about those charges anyhow, it would never affect them right? They are landlords that are in compliance with the laws and vet their tenants with background checks and keep their rental properties in great shape, right? They do their own inspections? They seriously, don’t take advantage and dump that responsibility and burden of cost on the backs of the taxpayers and rely on the housing inspectors to do all this for them once a year? Right? You know that part that costs me money a year in taxes to supply that service as a homeowner?

This is a win win for our entire community. Extra funding for the police and fire departments that can drive out the crime element and get rid of the scum tenants.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Dec-12-13 2:12 PM

More respectable people moving into our rentals that would actually not be higher than a kite and burn down the homes or cause excessive cost to clean up Meth labs and those nasty dangerous chemicals that endanger our fire fighters and police and neighborhoods. Cleaner community, businesses will move in, jobs will be created and our little economy will prosper and those like the Cahill’s will prosper with their OWN businesses and they will have the extra out of pocket funding they need to clean up their own properties downtown!!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Dec-12-13 2:13 PM

YEP! This is a WIN WIN for EVERYBODY! In fact, this will generate over $30,000 a year just with the extra $15.00 per rental property. That is a nice chunk of change to benefit our police and fire services. Can’t wait to see how much both departments get to benefit them and our entire community. Right? This is what this about, right Mayor Berlin? Just to think how much money this City could save by cleaning up our community, half of these other pipe dreams and personal agendas of wasted money wouldn’t be needed. Refreshing!!

Why would anybody challenge this type of progress on a ballot? This is a GOOD CHANGE.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EATTHERICH

Dec-12-13 2:55 PM

all good points people.i'm tired of all of the shoddy housing around town

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ethomas38

Dec-12-13 3:26 PM

Goll is upset about a $15.00 a year increase yet he had no problem with increases in water/sewer rates! Anything that'll cost Goll money is BAD! BUT if you GIVE Goll money to upgrade it's good. Dang Democrats!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-12-13 3:52 PM

I like every single comment so far. Some very good points Watchdog. (Everyone else too)

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swager

Dec-12-13 4:02 PM

So Goll doesn't like the taxed twice bracket. Neither do I. Welcome to the great unwashed. Really, when you can put 10 or more Guatamalans in a rental and charge upwards of 1k a month, what is $30? Inspections must turn a blind eye to the new hot rental model of Salem.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-12-13 9:15 PM

I don't like the whole program. It is an invasion of privacy. What if a tenant does not want the government invading their privacy. Isn't the constitution suppose to protect people from government invasion of their home without cause. I would certainly say coming into their private space without permission would certainly seem to me that their privacy rights were being violated. I know if I was a tenant I certainly would not want the government coming into my home uninvited. I would not feel I had to have the government check out the home to see if it was safe for me to live in it. If I did not like the way things were being kept up I would move. I would not need big brother to decide what was and was not good for me.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-12-13 9:24 PM

Then you have the whole emergency clause issue. What constitutes an emergency? The Emergency clause is not meant to be used except for certain situations. Also is this not under the authority of the zoning code which should require approval by the planning commission and then when passed by them isn't there suppose to be a 30 day notice of a public hearing to held prior to passage? This is a change in the zoning code is it not??

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swager

Dec-12-13 9:47 PM

concerned, I am a land owner. The county not only trespasses on my land to tax me more, they now take pictures from the air in case somebody missed something. They split hairs to pit us against each other. If they taxed us all at once and dug real deep the gallows would be built. Farmers, home owners, cars, boats, furs. Hunters, people who buy gas, clothes, trailers. Ok I'm tired of the money they*****from us and the rate we pay for their medical and retirement as we avoid going to the Dr and we know we have issues as we get older.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sniper

Dec-12-13 10:34 PM

Actually i think both party's do! LOL! But I happen to know a lot pay the fees and haven't seen inspectors in a long time. So I actually think it might be considered fraud too. And if their is a code for the inspection a list should be furnished to each before inspection so they have a fair chance in meeting some of the things i have heard them complain of. Basically the city wants a part of the money you earn on top of the taxes they charge on the same thing. And it doesn't cause better or safer housing most the time only higher because the tenants eat the cost. I think the city like state and federal needs to do things to earn their own money instead of over spending ours. To busy beautifying to worry about their own bills.Because they know they can tax us. See how quick they put that money a way. When i get given extra money i pay bills i couldn't before. Same as they should. Definatly need some changes here.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-13-13 7:01 AM

These inspections should be no different than the fire dept does .

Or would you prefer to lose your life because some land lord had a condition you where unaware of or some company had an unsafe condition.

Then when someone looses their life all the ******** starts,

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-13-13 7:04 AM

The inspections are not to intrude personally,but to make sure things are safe and up to code .

Companies and landlords have been known to take short cuts or skirt around issues until caught.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Dec-13-13 9:46 AM

Doesn't everyone remember a few years ago when license plates fees went up--the state said straight out they were charging more for fees (because they could--you get shut down if you don't pay) to use for revenue.

We had a boiler in a retail business that was state "inspected" once a year--cost went up to close to $400./yr for that. Elevator inspections went the same way--except they added a new "land reclamation" fee every year in case oil the elevator used might seep. Except, it doesn't. But other peoples' might have. Or not. But you have to pay and pay.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-13-13 9:54 AM

No body likes to pay more. But like everything else costs increase for every one.

Even government services. We can do with out. Just decide which ones.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-13-13 10:16 AM

Ladybug the city did without housing inspection dept. for about 190 years before this inspection dept. was established. Also why is it that just rentals are important to inspect. Is the city not concerned that those poor misguided homeowners are not able to determine if the place they are living is safe? It is all just the mentality that the government god is going to make everything all better for everyone. And the government just keeps getting bigger and bigger and they keep demanding more and more money from we the people.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-13-13 12:17 PM

Come on concerned .190 yrs ago.

So your saying just leave things go.

The property turns to trash. More low lifes, more crime .People die from unsafe condtions. and the property owner plays stupid. OK What ever .

Does this same attitude apply to unsafe working conditions at the buss establishments in town too ?

Nease Chemical BP oil spill , the plant that blew up in Texas over unsafe conditions Ok

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-13-13 12:20 PM

Things aren't better. People aren't living longer. ? got an answer ?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-13-13 12:23 PM

Maybe the gov. should eliminate the Border Patrol, Home Land Security ,Security at our Airports

Didn't have that 190 yrs ago either .

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-13-13 12:28 PM

And if you determine its unsafe . Who addresses the problem

Move out and the landlords will just find more trash to take their place

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-13-13 12:31 PM

While your at it throw in the FBI NSA and the CIA.

All they do is spy on us anyway.

0 Agrees | 1 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 »

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 »

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