AROUND TOWN, there has been no shortage of conversation about the new rental housing code that was proposed last week to the Emporia City Commission.
The goal of the new code is to improve the condition of the rental houses. If you look around town, it is not hard to see that there is plenty of substandard housing.
But the problem with the proposal is that blighted properties are not just limited to rental houses. There are many owner-occupied houses in desperate need of bulldozing.
Having a community discussion about housing in Emporia is good because the issue needs to be addressed.
So far, commissioners have heard from plenty of landlords about what they don’t like about the code.
What the commissioners are not hearing are some alternative solutions. If you don’t like what is being proposed, why not offer some solutions?
A public comment session has been set for 7 p.m. Monday at the Grace United Methodist Church fellowship hall, 2 Neosho St. Show up and be part of the community conversation.
netloafer (anonymous) says...
At the first meeting about the proposed ordinance about the only people who showed up were landlords.
Now we all know where the meeting is going to be held, and when. There are no excuses. We need to be there to make sure our voices are heard.
Be there!
October 17, 2007 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paccifier (anonymous) says...
We hope everyone knows, but to be sure, tell folks you know about this in the event they do not see the Gazette or hear local radio- Everyone needs their voice heard on this, and the Commissioners need to hear more than just the landlords viewpoint.
October 17, 2007 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paccifier (anonymous) says...
ks- I agree with you, but there are still ways to get your opinion in even without showing up- Folks can go to the City web site, find the e-mail addresses of the Commissioners, and send them a note to be only between them. Maybe take a picture of an offending address and attach it to the e-mail as a specific example- There are dumps in town- rented and owner occupied - and there are good and bad owners and renters- but we need a reasonable code to protect renters from abusive landlords- to bad we cannot also include provisions to help landlords with bad renters as easily.
October 17, 2007 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
One of the protections built into the proposed ordinance is that people can complain anonymously. I understand that's important. As for myself, I'm not too worried about that. I believe I'm on the right side of the issue and that's enough for me.
I intend to make my views known.
October 17, 2007 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale3697 (anonymous) says...
I'm glad to see Emporia is at least going to discuss housing standards. I moved to the area 3 years ago, took over a year looking at the homes for sale in Emporia. I must say the stock was twice as expensive as anywhere else I have lived, and even homes above $170,000 needed a ton of dollars poured into them to bring them up to liveable condition. I bought elsewhere for this reason. Even a fresh coat of paint would be an upgrade on some of the homes in town.
October 17, 2007 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paccifier (anonymous) says...
Ks- You'll hate this, but please remember something about Commissioners reading the posts is that it cannot be looked at as factual information- There is not a "real" person behind the comment, so anyone can say anything true or not. To be taken as a real thought the Commissioners need to know that there is a name with the comment. How many landlords could get on and say how great they are over and over on here and who would know really? So while Commissioners may look at this, it probably cannot be used as a real tool, only an indicator
October 17, 2007 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I like Tre's suggestion that the commish should be reading these posts on the rental housing code. There has been a ton of them, and many have been intelligent and offered good ideas. I also like what Paccifier said about e-mailing the commish directly. Both great ideas.
The best thing to happen to this city for a long time is for this to be brought out into the open and for something to be developed in the way of a standard or code, one that is fair to everyone. This has been a long time coming.
Also, Chris Walker, how about an article on the Neighborhood Revitilization Act. Give us the straight scoop, especially what areas in town it covers.
October 17, 2007 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Brooke (anonymous) says...
Requiring a license will only drive up rent. Kansas law currently favors the renter. There should be one housing agency that would handle complaints from occupants. The renter should have to provide documentation of substandard or dangerous conditions before attacking the landlord.
October 17, 2007 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jackslap (anonymous) says...
Brooke there is someone in town that you can contact about problems, a lot of people just don't know that. I rented years ago from a landlord that was BAD... I know other people that has rented from him recently and he still hasn't changed. I was there 15 days in his fine establishment with no lease sign because I was already hunting for a new place to live. I had to take him to court to get some of the depost back just because I did not take pictures before hand..... And it was cleaner when I moved out then when I moved in. He said that the freeze was not defrosted was one of the things..... If I would have had a picture of the frost free sign on the fridge it would have helped. Another thing was the carpet need to be streched...... 15 days..... Give me a brake..... The sad thing is this guy trys to lay carpet in this town..... He is a JOKE...
October 17, 2007 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporialifer (anonymous) says...
You know I've struggled with this topic for a while. I don't think it is right for there to be rentals that are dangerous to live in and people should be held accountable for that. I also think that there are a lot of good landlords out there who really take pride in their properties that are going to be punished (yearly fee) for the slumlords as they have been referred to. Brooke is right - the tenant is going to be the one to pay the yearly fee because the landlord is just going to tack it onto the cost of rent (granted $25/year is only $2 plus change a month), but some people might milk it. It seems that there are a lot of people though who are willing to live in those kind of conditions (which I think is very sad). I don't think rentals are the only units in town that are in poor condition though.
I have to agree with a different post - the housing and rentals on some of our main streets (especially around campus) is horrendous. Talk about some eye-sores. It's almost embarrassing to drive visitors down some of the streets around our campus because they look so run down and trashy. I don't know what the solution is for all of this - how do you teach a person to take pride in their home/rental and keep it looking nice if that is a characteristic they just don't possess?
October 18, 2007 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Emporialifer
We need to keep our eyes on the prize. I have no doubt that there are responsible landlords here in town. I'd like to think that they would support the proposed ordinance. It's not designed to target them; it's designed to start eliminating the blight and neglect that have gone on far too long.
The licensing fees proposed are not excessive. For a single house it's $25 a year. For a duplex it's $30 a year. For a 3-6 multi unit it's $50 a year. The highest it gets is $550 a year and that's for a multi unit of over 50 units. That amounts to $10 per unit per year, or about 85 cents per unit per month.
I don't think the proposed ordinance is perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.
The immediate targets will be the irresponsible landlords. The policy objective outlined in the proposed ordinance states that the city will adopt a "worst first" policy. In other words, the city is not going to be chasing down landlords who have some units that don't have ground fault adaptors, etc. They will target the landlords who have profited at the expense of tenants and the rest of the community..
It is true that rentals aren't the only units in poor condition. But, this ordinance covers rentals, especially since renters have limited choices. Unlike primary homeowners they are at the mercy of someone who owns the property they will be living in. I think it's best to take one step at a time and solve one problem at a time, and I think we can agree that substandard rental property is a significant city problem. Besides, section 17-47 of the city code notes that "structures or lands dangerous or injurious to health, safety or general welfare of the occupants of such structures and lands or other residents of the city, or which have a blighting influence on the properties in the area"..."the governing body further finds that the foregoing conditions render such structures or lands unsafe, unsanitary or detrimental to the health, safety or morals or otherwise detrimental to the welfare of the residents of the city, and it is hereby deemed necessary to require or cause the repair, closing, demolition, or removal of such structures or the remediation of such lands in the manner herein provided." In other words, that covers primary residences.
I think that once we get the city to adopt this new rental ordinance, we can then work toward having the city enforce the provisions of 17-47.
This proposed ordinance is giving the city the opportunity to put some teeth and meaning into the code regarding rental property. It's long overdue, and whatever flaws it may have are insignificant when compared to the abuse and neglect that has piled up over the years.
The time to act is now, not later!
October 18, 2007 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )