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

Salem council raises housing fees

December 18, 2013

SALEM — City council voted 6-1 Tuesday to increase the annual housing occupancy fee from $15 per unit to $30 per unit, passing all three readings at once for an amended version of the ordinance....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(48)

concerned

Dec-18-13 8:25 AM

What is amazing about this is: the majority that voted for this increase are the ones that run on a platform that that says they are for a smaller less intrusive government and are members of the anti-tax increase party. Rather than dismantle the government that we can not afford and really do not need, they find ways to expand it & increase taxes to pay for it. There is little wonder people do not believe or have any trust in those who we put in office, when none of them follow the principles they run on to get elected. If you can not trust someone in the little things you sure can't trust them with the big things. This was a chance to take a step in the right direction, instead they voted for the status quo and funded it with a 100% increase in taxes. Not a big tax increase dollar wise but a 100% tax increase none the less. There is an old Indian saying. "white man speaks with forked tongue" I think the modern day version of that would be "Politicians speak with f

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-18-13 8:28 AM

Sorry thought I had enough room to finish. modern day saying "politicians speak with forked tongue."

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-18-13 8:28 AM

Sorry thought I had enough room to finish. modern day saying "politicians speak with forked tongue."

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-18-13 9:26 AM

What by pass ? Oh the one to no-ware. Duh !

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-18-13 9:39 AM

The bypass only works if you are not going east. If your headed toward Columbiana you would have a hard time taking the by pass. My guess would be most of the trucks that come into town are either heading East, coming from the east or delivering in town. Not much else they can do but come thru town.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oakleaves

Dec-18-13 10:15 AM

Concerned, The Mayor spearheaded the campaign against the 1/2% income tax raise that could of helped fund the housing dept, only to come back and want the landlord fee's raised 100%. He is taxing a group of people who provide a home for those who choose to not own a home for one reason or another. A lot of these people are the poor and elderly. These fee's will be passed down to those that can least afford it. If you think it won't happen you are looking thru rose colored glasses. Some of these people are living on meager means as it is. Many have to choose between food, or medicine now. This could put them over the edge.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KsBug79

Dec-18-13 10:49 AM

Concerned, you said it best. It is the Democratic representative who voted against this. But how are the citizens surprised that the Republicans are not out to get more money in the coffers whichever way they can do it? They are all about the money, though they say they are not about taxes. They could care less how it affects the citizens, or what is in their best interest.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-18-13 11:09 AM

Tom Coburn put out a publication each year about government waste.

You'd be surprised what that $30 billion included,

Hey it ain't their money.Just spend it

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-18-13 11:46 AM

I feel for these truck drivers ..Especially when they have to deal with the inconsiderate JA who pulls up to an intersection knowing*****well that the driver wants to turn there.

Maybe they should take what their picking up or delivering to some other town.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-18-13 11:58 AM

I don't think the citizens would be willing to pay .5% inc. tax vs. a $30/yr. fee or $2.5/month

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-18-13 12:00 PM

I guess it comes down to the real need for housing inspections.?

Certainly not all these places are low income.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

glovesoff

Dec-18-13 2:09 PM

To everyone: I emailed Councilman Clyde Brown a couple hours ago. He just replied: He voted "No" on the increase because he fully believes the dollar amount will be passed on to low income and senior citizen renters. I have to say he supports the people in his ward. He fought the scrap yard on West Pershing Street. He was the original voice against passing an ordinance against drilling anywhere in the City except in M1 & M2 Industrial Districts. He knew the State had the last word and passing an ordinance was a waste of time. Last night he proved once again he's a councilman that speaks for the people and not a puppet like some elected officials. gramps

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Dec-18-13 6:25 PM

Wow all the drama on here, let me add to it!

I can't wait to see this. Any renter in Salem if your rent is increased by $1.25 a month, (that is about what it will amount to with this increase) since you already probably pay the first original $15.00 in your rent now. POST IT HERE and the name of your cheap scape landlord and if you would be so kind, please mention whether or not he or she is a republican or a Democrat! L.M.A.O.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Dec-18-13 6:27 PM

glovesoff, did you happen to ask ole Clyde what his alternative to this problem was since he was against this solution?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RickDrummond

Dec-18-13 7:10 PM

As Chairman of the Rules and Ordinance Committee, that recently recommended to send to council the increase in the Occupancy License Fee, I'd like to take a moment to reply to some of your comments. 1. We did not vote last night to increase any tax. We voted and passed legislation to increase the fee to rental property owners. If those rental property owners decide to pass the cost of running their business along to their customers (their tenants), or choose to absorb it (as some have stated they will) that is their choice to make. The fee they are required to pay is another cost they incur to carry on their business. If a landlord includes a tenants heat and electricity in his or her rent and First Energy or Columbia Gas increases its rates to the landlord, is that a tax? No, it's the business cost the landlord chooses to either absorb from his or her profits or passes along to his tenant. 2. By passing this ordinance, the city has not become a larger, more intrusive government

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RickDrummond

Dec-18-13 7:13 PM

2. By passing this ordinance, the city has not become a larger, more intrusive government. The size of the Housing Inspection office prior to this increase was 2 part time workers and the size of the Housing Inspection office after the increase is 2 part time workers. The Housing Inspection office will not be changing its policies and procedures in any way as a result of the increase. The fees have and will continue to be used to cover the cost of dealing with rental property issues (inspections, complaints, etc.). 3. There have been comments that this fee will hit those who least can afford it, the hardest. I believe the fee it necessary to PROTECT those who least can afford having to deal with a landlord who perhaps makes a conscious decision to not maintain his or her rental properties. By having the Occupancy fee, the City can inspect those properties and, where necessary, force landlords to bring conditions up to a minimum standard.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RickDrummond

Dec-18-13 7:14 PM

Without those inspections, perhaps a tenant would not have the courage or desire to 'fight with his/her landlord' to get things corrected. 4. Watchdog was likely correct when she stated that it's probable that tenants are already paying the $15/year fee as part of their rent. The fee has been that way for 10 years. If Landlord Jones didn't pass it on to his tenant when that fee took effect, he/she likely did to the next tenant. If Landlord Jones chooses to pass the $1.25/month fee to his/her tenant, that his their choice. I realize that in today's economic climate, every dollar is precious, so even $1.25 can be significant to a renter. The choice to increase the fee to $30/unit/year was made so that there shouldn't be another fee increase for some years to come so any increase to their rents by their landlords in the years to come should not be due to this Occupancy License Fee.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-19-13 11:34 AM

Mr. Drummond Just because you do not call it a tax increase it still cost people money. This is the whole problem. Legislators think if it isn't an income tax or a sales or property tax it is not a tax. ALL GOVERNMENT MANDATES COST MONEY and are "taxes". You can try to fool yourself into thinking you have not passed on a tax but your actions will cost someone something. Granted it is not a lot but it is a little bit here and little bit there that adds up. Second it still violates the rights of tenants to have their homes inspected without probable cause. If you want to provide something where big brother government can protect people as you say, then make inspections only when complaints are made. You are paying people to run around and inspect properties that have never had a complaint and never had a violation yet you enter peoples homes without just cause!! Why don't you get concerned about protecting folks constitutional rights? Do those rights mean anything to you? &quo

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ts1227

Dec-19-13 11:44 AM

The only way to alleviate E/W truck traffic is to actually build another leg of the bypass to connect in on the east end. Otherwise, there is no choice but State St. because it is the only state route running that way.

Now N/S, you could either "move" route 9 onto the bypass so it goes around town, or at least label the bypass as Truck Route 9 so that through trucks know to go around.

Good luck trying to explain anything to the political lunatic fringe that posts on here, Mr. Drummond. Just be glad that they are an extreme minority.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Dec-19-13 2:23 PM

HAHAHAHA...did I read that right? It's a fee, not a tax?

I'm not for or against this, I could really care less. However, saying it isn't a tax is ridiculous.

Tax, n: a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

A mandatory "fee" from the government is a tax. Just because you don't want your public record to say that a tax was increased on your watch doesn't mean you get to decide what words mean.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Dec-19-13 2:39 PM

It also does increase the scope of the city government, whereas without the "fee" (tax) increase, it is reasonable to assume that the housing inspection office would have had to downsize. Just because it isn't growing doesn't mean the scope isn't larger than it would have been without it.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Dec-19-13 2:43 PM

And if that isn't reasonable to assume, then that means the "fee" (tax) is bogus in the first place.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Dec-19-13 4:36 PM

Grant they were down to one inspector. They just called the second one back to work recently. If they just had inspections when there was a complaint and charge the one being complained about for the inspection then they would not have to have two inspectors with one spending all his time doing paper work. Sending out bills I would think is what the majority of the paper work entails. TS1227 is the government entering private homes without probable cause and/or a warrant ok with you? It is thinking like that which has trampled under foot the Bill of Rights. You know that document our country was founded upon.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-19-13 6:43 PM

You know concerned I can understand your views,

But I think you find out what the job entails before always critizing

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Dec-19-13 7:00 PM

2100 + rental units div. by 50 = 40/wk. or 8/day plus paper work and follow up is a lot of work for a person working 30 hrs/wk.

And I don't think they violate anyones rights as long as the law is fallowed. Your entitled to your opinion if this is needed or not,

To always make a job like it's some made up fabricated job gets old.

Most of your cities have different depts. to enforce codes,

0 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