Emotions ran high Monday evening, prompting about 10 people to walk out in frustration halfway through a public forum about the Emporia Human Relations Commission’s proposed minimum standards for rental housing.
More than 80 people attended the meeting, which lasted one and a half hours. It is to be the first of several forums that will be held for the public to comment on the proposed city standards. The meeting was at Grace United Methodist Church.
In a meeting earlier this month, Emporia Mayor Julie Johnson explained that after the spring election in April and shortly after City Manager Matthew Zimmerman came on board, the city held a series of sessions to discuss strategy and priorities. One thing that became apparent from those meetings, Johnson said, was a concern for available housing in Emporia and the need to improve the safety and physical appearance of the city.
The Human Relations Commission was asked to draft a proposal to address rental housing standards. Those recommendations, a 22-page packet of proposed standards and regulations, were presented to city commissioners and the public earlier this month.
Monday evening’s meeting allowed both sides to speak. Only a few people stood up in favor of the proposed housing codes.
Emporian Phil Dillon, who has lived in Emporia for eight years, was the first person to stand up during the meeting to support the proposed rental housing codes.
Dillon talked about substandard homes near Ninth Avenue and Neosho Street. He said there is not a city block in central Emporia that doesn’t have at least one home that is in need of attention.
Dillon added that the rental standards are in the best interests of the community.
“If this ordinance isn’t approved, it will undo all the work that the Human Relations Commission has done. I urge the commissioners to approve the ordinance.”
A representative of the League of Women Voters Emporia Chapter, Jacqueline Heckman-James, spoke in favor of the proposal. Heckman-James said Emporia has a responsibility to make sure housing is safe and livable. She said that more than 1,100 housing units in Emporia have been identified as needing rehabilitation.
“A change is needed,” Heckman-James said, adding that earlier efforts to maintain adequate rental units has not produced adequate results.
The supporters of the proposed rental standards were far outnumbered by opponents at Monday night’s meeting. Those speaking against the proposal drew a wide range of response from the audience, from applause to groans. Eventually, several people who objected to the anti-standards speaker walked out of the meeting in frustration.
Some of the speakers against the standards said the proposal is an added tax and would hurt the rental industry. Others said there is a need to protect the landlords from destructive tenants.
The first person to speak against the proposal was Dean Mangus, owner and operator of A-OK Remodeling, 618 Washington St.
“Every time I buy a rental property I work very hard to get it up to standards and make it a livable place,” Mangus said.
Mangus said something does need to be done without penalizing the good landlords.
Maurice Schmidt, of EK Real Estate, 1201 W. Sixth Ave., said the charge given to the Human Relations Commission by the city commission was to esthetically improve the appearance of the Emporia community.
“The proposal before us does little to meet that,” he said.
Schmidt said consumers have a responsibility to take an item back to where they purchased it if it’s broken — they need to stand up for their consumer rights.
“If something is wrong with (my) car it is my consumer duty to take it back and get what I am entitled to,” he said. “I do not believe the masses are helpless and should be allowed to be helpless in defending themselves in consumer rights.”
Don Eusey, president of the Emporia Board of Realtors, said nuisance properties in Emporia have largely been ignored and allowed to increase.
“We support the city’s efforts,” Eusey said, adding that building codes are already in place, and just need to be enforced. “Enforcement of existing housing standards can ensure that rental housing meets minimum (standards).”
Eusey said existing codes are adequate and just need to be enforced. He said the proposed regulations would discourage investors from buying rundown properties to fix them up.
“It will have a negative impact on available housing in Emporia,” he said.
Following public comment, Steve Idhe, a member of the Human Relations Commission, spoke.
“Basically what we were put here to do was to determine if we should have minimum housing standards,” Idhe said. “... I think we need rental standards but I don’t think we know what’s behind closed doors. I believe if we are all put on a level playing field, the good landlord is going to benefit.”
Blaise Plummer, city attorney, explained to the audience what the city is up against when it comes to inspecting housing. Plummer said the city code only applies to the outside of homes and officials can only go inside homes if they either have a search warrant or they are invited in.
“The city itself has no authority to go inside the residence,” Plummer said.
At the conclusion of the meeting, which lasted until about 8:30 p.m., Johnson said it is important that dialog on the issue continues. She said another meeting would be held, but the date has not been set.
“At the next meeting, we will want to sit down and have a conversation with the Human Relations Commission and talk a little bit more about their proposal and modifications that may be needed to be made,” she said.
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
I can understand why this would be a sensitive subject, but not being able to attend the meeting I'd like to learn more.
What was the reason for those ten attendees to walk out (what angered them)?
What specifically did the leaders of the meeting propose (content)?
That's worth reporting, and certainly the Gazette bloggers would like to discuss.
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
October 23, 2007 at 3:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
Oh, and I would like to add that I am glad to see more citizens attending and participating in these civic meetings.
BP
SF, CA
October 23, 2007 at 3:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Brian,
This story was the short posting right after the meeting. Brandy Nance is working on a longer story. I'll write over this one as soon as it's done.
Gwen Larson
October 23, 2007 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Brian
There were a lot of emotions expressed and some left the meeting. But I think some left because they'd expressed their views and didn't feel they needed to hear anything else. And a few left because they were just angry (I couldn't figure out the reason why).
Those of us who support the proposed ordinance got to express our views first. There were three, including myself. We all, in one way or another, focused on the real economic benefit taking care of the blight and neglect would bring, the injustice of the current situation, and countered the idea that the rental owners put forth - that government had no right to regulate their business.
Those opposed focused on the renters and said that while change was needed the ordinance either needed to be improved or existing ordinances needed to be better enforced. One man spent some time stringing ad hominems toward Patty Gilligan and the commissioners. He seemed to have most of the rental owners on his side.
The human relations commission had little to say other than Steve Eihde, who did a good job of explaining that improving the housing stock, rental or otherwise, would benefit us all. Valuations would go up in real terms and so would the owners' equity. In addition, taxes could actually be reduced and the share of the tax burden could be shared equitably.
My wife and I bought a hundred year old Prairie Victorian eight years ago. It had been abandoned for years and subsquently mismanaged. We sunk the proceeds from the sale of our house in Tennessee into it. We did so because we wanted a good home and we also wanted to be good neighbors/citizens. Our taxes have almost doubled since we moved here. A year ago we bought the house next door for my wife's mom and developmentally disabled brother. We added a deck and some other improvements. When we purchased the house the paid the pro rated portion of the $900 a year in taxes. In December she got her first property tax bill - $1400. Now, we want to pay our fair share. At the corner of 9th and Neosho there is a rental property that is in utter disrepair. While my wife's mother's taxes almost doubled, the slumlord's went up by $10. There's something terribly wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.
Was it a productive meeting? There's no way to tell right now. I'd like to see the ordinance pass. I recognize it's not perfect. If the rental owners say they want things added, I can say the same thing from my side. I think that's nothing more than a delaying tactic. We'll never have a perfect ordinance, but the one proposed is eons beyond the current situation here in Emporia. .
It's unfortunate that Brandy Nance is sensationalizing rather the reporting. It might sell copy, but there was a lot more going on at the meeting last night than ten angry people walking out. This is a serious issue, one that I believe is critical to our future as a city and the Gazette's reporting staff should treat it as such.
October 23, 2007 at 8:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
You did a fine job of reporting, netloafer. Thanks for that. I agree with you on a delaying tactic taking place. This comes under the heading of the old adage about pleasing some of the people some of the time... However, anything is better than what we have now which is practically nothing.
Unfortunately, whenever people in meetings become stubborn about what they want, they lob character attacks or make arguments that are full of fallacies. Was this a landlord/slumlord? It would seem to be. Someone who thinks he has a lot to lose will not listen, only attack. Of course he will have almost all the rental owners on his side. They don't want to see the total picture, and they certainly don't want their properties scrutinized.
I remember the tax bill increase on my place just after I built a privacy fence. Holy macaroni! All that for a fence! Yet it's only fair to tax improvements. Just wish they weren't so high. Conversely, the guy up the street has never put a nickel into his rental property since I have lived here. The place is falling apart, and it affects the value of my property. Why should I allow him to get away with that?
Not long ago, I think it was tre who had an idea that improvements to a property should carry a bonus of some sort for taxes. On the other hand, those who do not improve their property should pay a penalty. I like that idea. That would be a battle, though, wouldn't it?
I'm afraid that those of us who welcome change are in for a really big battle.
October 23, 2007 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lincoln (anonymous) says...
The rental housing policy is a very hot issue and no matter what is finally decided, someone will be unhappy. Emporia does need to do something about housing to clean up houses that are not safe or sanitary. Fault is on both sides of the issues (tenants and landlords). However, landlords should not be able to take advantage of poor people, and people too timid to stand up to someone they feel is in authority. Would some of the landlords want to live in the housing they provide to renters? I doubt it. Making personal attacks on one person does not change anything. The EHRC and ECHO have done a lot to help the community. Unfortunately it takes more than one person to make anything work. Where are the dedicated and caring people that are willing to help instead of stand back and judge and criticize? To make any organization work, there has to be involvement of more than one person. Failure occurs when not enough people do their part. If some one tries to character assassinate someone else, I feel maybe their toes got stepped on and rather than face facts they attack someone personally. Should we not be working together to make Emporia a great community to live in for everyone? I know today's philosophy is greed and money, but maybe we need to get back some of the caring and sharing values that this country was built on. Let us talk issues and not criticize others for trying to make Emporia a community to be proud of. My personal views by Nancy Hargett
October 23, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Kstrebuchet
Actually, the slumlords are driving the taxes up on the properties that are kept in good repair. The city needs a certain amount of revenue to provide services. Once that number is derived and the property values are calcuated the city determines what the mill levy will be. The slumlords are one of the prime causes of high mill levies. The rest of us pay an inordinate share of the city's tax burden. It may appear that the mill levy is equal for everyone, but if the slumlords had to improve their property, valuations would go up and the mill levy would go down.
My brother lives in Massachusetts. The average valuation in the town he lives in is $360k. The average property tax in that town is about $3000. That's what it takes for municipal government and schools to operate there. If we took the mill levy we have here and applied it to that same value house, the tax bill would go up to $6800
I do like your idea of taxing the slum lords based on what the comparitive value of homes in the neighborhood are. I've floated it with the city and with the county appraiser before, but they didn't like it.
October 23, 2007 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Kstrebuchet
In raw dollar terms the taxes would go down as the value went down. But, the person who owns that property loses equity, which is far greater than the taxes.
The slum lords are not only costing us in terms of taxes, they're costing us in terms of lost equity
The person who keeps his property up here pays a far greater share of the city's tax burden than the slum lord. If they had to fix their properties up to some minimum, livable standard, their valuations would go up dramatically while the rest of us would see very slight increases in valuation. Then, the slumlord's taxes would go up in proportion to the value and the burden would be shared more equitably.
As I said, I agree with your point about taxing the slum lords based on what the value should be. I've floated it with the county (appraiser) and they don't want anything to do with that right now. They say that the current method is fixed by Kansas statute.
October 23, 2007 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
Gwen, thanks for clarifying, and thank you Brandy for the additional information. I was suffering from insomnia, last night. I should have realized by the late hour of the story's posting that there would be more details to come on Tuesday.
Gracias!
BP
SF, CA
October 23, 2007 at 6:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
According to Maurice Schmidt, "Consumers have a responsibility to take an item back to where they purchased it if it’s broken — they need to stand up for their consumer rights."
What in the world is Schmidt talking about? What consumer rights? Renters complaining to landlords? About what? Their rights as tenants? The window that isn't getting fixed year after year? The porch that's falling off? That bird ain't gonna fly, and that's exactly why minimum standards were proposed for rental housing to begin with. TOO DAMN MANY LANDLORDS AREN'T COOPERATING, SCHMIDT! Dang, it's no wonder why so many people walked out of the meeting.
According to Netloafer, "In raw dollar terms the taxes would go down as the value went down. But, the person who owns that property loses equity, which is far greater than the taxes."
Actually, netloafer, while I can see your point, I don't think slumlords are half as interested in equity as they are in cash flow. If they had an interest in equity, they wouldn't allow their properties to deteriorate.
October 23, 2007 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Snake, you ask where the incentive is if you don't make an effort to maintain your home and your taxes stay the same or only slightly rise. Shouldn't the incentive be pride? Even a little?
October 23, 2007 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Create
I agree that the slumlords are only interested in cash flow. I saw that much at last night's meeting. But they're being short sighted. They could have cash flow and increased equity if they repaired their properties. If they did that we'd all benefit
October 23, 2007 at 7:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Netloafer, I firmly agree with you, but you are stating the big picture, and I'm afraid these slumlords only see the tiny picture. Short sighted is true.
October 23, 2007 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rami (anonymous) says...
I am actually against the new housing codes and I believe that the current codes should be enforced before new ones even get considered.
There are some landlords who try to keep their housing safe and up to code but the tenants never say anything about problems until it's too late and will cost alot of money to repair. Then there are the slumlords who ignore any problems and could care less about codes or safety as long as they get their money. I can think of a few slumlords off the top of my head.
It really would be unfair to punish the good landlords just because the bad ones won't cooperate.
October 23, 2007 at 11:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
siamesefred (anonymous) says...
I'm not disputing that there are bad landlords out there, because there are.
But I think the county appraiser's office could get more accurate valuations of properties if they'd assign someone to peruse real estate Web sites for listings. Have you looked lately?
I've found houses listed for asking prices of $75K to $100K over what the county's appraised the property. The likely reason? Because appraisals are done by drive-bys, not interior inspections. Some people really work on their properties on the inside, but let the exterior slide to fool the appraiser.
It's easy to look at the interior pics that agents are posting and see just how many improvements have been made. Just think what would happen to all our tax bills if these properties were appraised more accurately.
October 24, 2007 at 6:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Kstrebuchet
There are a lot of us who do the very things you say. We have a group of guys at our church who take Saturdays and paint homes for others. We find it very rewarding. Some of us in the community do work with Habitat for Humanity. My wife and I have worked with others in our neighborhood. I've worked with local banks, trying to get the city to have public meetings to let people know there are programs available to assist them, including the 203K's I mentioned in another post. I've also worked with people to let them know that the city has programs, like free paint, etc to help them.
There are a lot of us who have never adopted a "I have it and you don't" mentality. There are a lot of us who are willing to do our part, and more. There are a lot of us who care about this community and its people, regardless of their economic, social, gender, or ethnic status. We care!
This is not a we-they proposition. This is an "us" proposition.
October 24, 2007 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Weltha (anonymous) says...
I believe its the county that has the paint. Lyon County Hazardous Waste. 3000 W. South Ave. I've gone and gotten it there before. They have paint, stain, spray paint, thinners, bug and weed sprays etc... They are open Monday - Friday 8-4. Its all free and first come first serve. Its pretty good stuff.
October 24, 2007 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Kstrebuchet
Thanks, but I wasn;t defending myself. I was attempting (perhaps clumsily) to point out that there are people in Emporia who really care. I also understand that I'm not immune to criticism. I saw that the other night in the publc forum on the rental code issue. I'm part of a decided minority as far as this issue goes. I understand that. That's part of what the public square is about.
I do understand that there are a lot of people who don't care about this city and its people, particularly the poor, but I cannot do someone else's caring for them. All I can do is care and be active in the community. I've been willing to do that since the day we moved her. I cannot give in because there are a lot of people who don't care. That would make me untrue to my beliefs.
October 24, 2007 at 10:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
According to rami: "It really would be unfair to punish the good landlords just because the bad ones won't cooperate."
I fully agree with rami. There are many good landlords in town and they do a great job of keeping their properties in good repair. I honestly believe that what boiled the pot over with regard to all this controversy are the many properties that are NOT in good repair, and in fact are indeed deteriorating. One tour of the central part of Emporia, and just east of ESU will reveal that.
I agree with tre about the bottom line -- that most people don't want to fork over more $$ to pay for new positions. It goes without saying that some things still need to be ironed out, but we still need to do something about major deterioration and those slumlords who simply won't act to fix their properties. That is where this all started, and that is where it needs to stay, not on paint color or that sort of thing.
October 24, 2007 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
FYI, Snake has been removed as a user as he/she requested. This means, however, that all posts made are deleted. Sorry, but some threads will seem odd, based on that. For instance, there will be replies to posts that are no longer there.
Gwen Larson
October 24, 2007 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
LOL This means that old snake may be back with a different user name. We'll have to keep an eye out for that sensitive guy.
October 24, 2007 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )