Posted: 6:00 a.m. Thursday, June 18, 2015

Middletown landlord questions nuisance ordinance

By Ed Richter

Staff Writer

MIDDLETOWN — 

Middletown’s proposed chronic nuisance ordinance received a first reading Tuesday, but not all landlords are in agreement with the revised language.

The Middletown Real Estate Investors Group and City Manager Doug Adkins spent about one month clarifying the language of the ordinance, which is designed to keep track of properties that generate higher than normal calls for city services through code enforcement violations, criminal activity or other actions that require a public safety unit to respond.

The ordinance was set to be on City Council’s April 21 agenda, but was pulled so city officials could have further conversations about it with local landlords.

Jeff Faulkner, a local landlord who told council during citizen comments that he owns more than 100 properties in Middletown, wanted clarifications on issues of criminal trespass and how that would trigger a nuisance violation as well as other penalties and provisions.

Faulkner said some landlords who use property management services may not know about police calls for service until it is too late and was concerned about the amount of penalties and fines that could be levied against landlords. He also raised concerns about the appeals process.

“I would have thought you would have asked for the opinion of those who own a lot of property,” said Faulkner, who claimed he was never invited to landlord meetings.

After the meeting, City Manager Doug Adkins said Faulkner’s concerns were already addressed in the ordinance. Those provisions include that a landlord who learns of the issue and who has taken the necessary steps to address the issue, such as filing criminal complaints against someone or initiated eviction proceedings, will not face action by the city or have those properties declared as chronic public nuisances.

Steve Bohannon, chairman of the Middletown Real Estate Investors Group that is made up of local landlords, said they have spent a lot of time working with city officials on the proposed ordinance trying to do something positive to protect their investments and to work with the city.

“He’s a bigger operator and doesn’t need us,” Bohannon said of Faulkner. “Most of us have a smaller number of properties.”

Faulkner and the city have had issues in the past, including a pending civil suit against the city in Butler County Common Pleas Court that was filed in January concerning malicious prosecution and other issues when the city operated its own public housing authority to administer Section 8 housing choice vouchers.

The city has transferred control of the Section 8 program to the Butler and Warren county metropolitan housing authorities and has closed down the Middletown Metropolitan Housing Authority.

“It’s (the ordinance) is designed to get the out of town landlords out who don’t care about the city,” Bohannon said. “I’m 100 percent behind it and it’s good for the city. If you have properties, you need to take care of them. Do what you’re supposed to do and everything will be fine.”

The proposal is now set to go before council for consideration and final adoption at the June 21 meeting.

Earlier this year, to assist local landlords in leasing their properties to quality prospects, the city set aside $5,000 for reduced-cost background checks. Landlords currently are left to their own devices to screen tenants.

The city is working with Selection.com who can prepare a report on prospective tenants that include previous addresses, past due accounts, and credit score as well as a criminal check of more than 241 courts in Ohio. In addition, the company also offers about 19 other types of checks for an additional fee.

Selection.com usually charges $15 for these reports, but will do it for $9 for local landlords.

Selection.com reported eight landlords have screened 26 prospective tenants since the program started, according to city spokeswoman Carley Berman.

 

Vet
This ordiance covers every property in Middletown, not just rental properties and not just Section 8...EVERY PROPERTY

I believe that Mr Faulkner  owns about 20 Section 8 properties all others are apartments and commercial properties.

Both DA, city hall, and council can't release their desire to eliminate and target those less fortunate legally residing in the city. They can't let go of their investment in computer systems that were to be used to set section 8 folks up, and landlords, to reduce vouchers. This isn't about improving quality of life, moving higher wage earners in, it is a false narrative that keeps the city focused on disruption and targeting others, to keep the focus off city failures.

Clean up has a purpose, but not at the expense of fair play and trampling of rights. Steve Bohannon had it right. It is not section 8 voucher holders whom don't take pride in themselves nor the community. Your problems in Middletown are escalated miles above and beyond 1662 vouchers. May give city hall a convenient scapegoat called section 8, but to do so tramples on all individual rights and to tolerate prejudice and injustice is just wrong. The city plans are to dictate who a landlord rents to in Middletown. There's a hell of a lot of neighbors many might want to purge, but no one should want city hall to have the power to determine whom is worthy to live in the shell of a city named Middletown.  

This is probably why Doug Adkins was hired and the value council truly found in his 125 page call to action plan. Don't worry about HUD council, Plan B is the ordinance which we control landlords that do the dirty work in getting rid of Section 8. Hired. 

Factguy wrote: Hmmm. Viet Vet says there are too many vouchers in Middletown. City council indicates there are too many vouchers in Middletown. Council and Viet Vet agree. Viet Vet bashes city council. Scratching the head in confusion.

Mercy Factguy, because of one rare agreement, you are now "confused"? Council caused the overload of voucher numbers. We all knew from the start there were too many vouchers for this city to handle. Council, now agrees with what we have been saying from day one but it doesn't change the fact they are the cause of the voucher escalation. No mystery here.

Certainly doesn't mean I am now starting to agree with city leaders or council on things. As a matter of fact, I would bet there is a 99 and 44/100ths percent chance we will never agree on anything. This is one incident of a variable. The bashing of council will remain the constant. It also appears your continued bashing of members of this forum will remain a constant as well.

Why the sudden urge to start the targeting again?

TonyB:
"I think you make a serious mistake blaming Section 8 landlords for accepting tenants under the program "for their personal financial benefit"".

Tony, why else would they acquire properties, fix 'em up to HUD standards, enroll in the Section 8 program and have Section 8 qualified people occupy their houses if the bottom line wasn't to make money? You aren't suggesting that the landlords actually care about these people and want them to succeed are you? Section 8 landlords run a business and are in it for the fed money. Otherwise, the houses sit empty or, if rented, the people leave in the middle of the night and the owners have a hard time keeping the house occupied, especially in this town.

TonyB:
"I don't hear that kind of condemnation for those that take advantage of the Senior Citizens Center for their own personal benefit".

The Senior Citizens Center services are financed through levy approvals and donations. The Senior Citizen Center doesn't harm the reputation and image of this city like the Section 8 program does. The financing of the Senior Center is another story though.

TonyB:
"It isn't the people who use these programs that should shoulder the blame; it's the politicians who approve of these programs"

I contend that. like food stamps. WIC and every other government program, there are SOME Section 8 users who are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and mooch off the taxpayer as often and as long as they can get away with it. SOME come from a long line of family members who have continued the family tradition of being taxpayer parasites. I also believe that there is a real need for SOME, ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, and they should be given a time limit for the handouts. Then, when their time runs out, they either develop into a responsible person in society and start paying their own way or they hit the streets on their own. The handouts should be over with at a certain point in time. None should be a "forever" thing.

The bottom line theme for me concerning Section 8, as it applies to Middletown.......too much of it and that attracts the potential landlords, who see that HUD money and who want to be in the business of housing some, NOT ALL, who have no problem taking handouts. And the type of people, SOME, NOT ALL, who want to take handouts tend to be lazy and on the irresponsible side.....and what this city DOES NOT NEED is additional irresponsible, lazy people as residents.

Example: Take a nice neighborhood where the houses are kept up and people tend to take pride in what they own, be it car, house, etc. Introduce ONE house on the block and set up Section 8, give it some time, sit back and take notice on the condition of the yard, the overall neatness of the house, the cars parked in the driveway and on the street in front of the house, the behavior, the none-caring on upkeep.....a once quiet street is suddenly altered ......have seen it on my block and in several homes on the next street over. It is like the beginning of a cancer. A once healthy environment has now been introduced by a condition that is very negative in nature. I'm sure there are other neighborhoods that are suffering the same fate. There may be no escaping this unless you live in the Oaks or on DiVinci. Wouldn't be surprised to hear it has crept into Manchester Manor either. Elistists? No. Just change your mind-set to fit in with the flow of the neighborhood, that's all.

TonyB:
On an unrelated topic, you shouldn't be surprised that offering your opinion would result in "bashing" by those who don't agree with you. In the words of Aristotle: "If you wish to avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing and be nothing". I appreciate your point of view even when I don't agree with it. Those who would make personal attacks instead of logical argument demonstrate they have no real argument. It always says more about the person making the attack than it will ever say about the person attacked. Let that garbage slide off your back like water on a duck!!!

Yeah, but Tony, I like to argue and I like giving back what I get. It is a stress reliever.