Posted: 3:49 p.m. Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Absentee landlords concerned with new nuisance law

Adkins: ‘We’re not going to put up with this for very long’

By Ed Richter

Staff Writer

MIDDLETOWN — 

    Some absentee landlords have already contacted Middletown officials about a new chronic nuisance ordinance that has yet to be passed.

    During Tuesday’s Middletown City Council meeting, the new chronic nuisance ordinance received a first reading. City Manager Doug Adkins said a recent Journal-News article about the proposed ordinance prompted a couple of absentee landlords to make inquiries of the police and community revitalization departments about it.

    Adkins said one landlord who lives outside of Dayton asked if the news was true. When told that it was, Adkins said the landlord told him, “I’m going to sell my property and get out of Middletown. I don’t want to mess with this.” A second landlord, who called and found out the city was serious about penalizing property owners for not mowing tall grass when notified, said he was going to evict his tenant and get the property cleaned up because he did not want to deal with the ramifications.

    Adkins said the proposed ordinance, which was developed by city officials from similar ordinances across the state, is designed to keep track of those properties that generate higher than normal calls for city services by way of code enforcement violations and/or criminal activity. The proposed ordinance was also reviewed by local landlords as well.

    Adkins said a chronic nuisance ordinance attempts to identify those particular properties by reviewing and collecting nuisances registered across all city departments, then city officials notify the owner that his property is becoming a nuisance to the neighborhood. He said the proposed ordinance would enable the city to take action against the owner to recover ongoing future city costs in responding to and abating those nuisances if the owner chooses not to take action to correct the situation.

    “The idea is to make sure the owner knows that his property is becoming a problem before it escalates, and then to make sure that either the problem is resolved or that the city is reimbursed for future costs responding to problems at that property,” Adkins said.

    It also keeps track across city departments on properties that are becoming chronic nuisance problems and blighting the city, he said. It also keeps property owners accountable.

    “It’s the simple idea that we’re not going to put up with this for very long,” Adkins said. “At some point (for those property owners), it’s not going to be worth it to continue to allow this nuisance property to…blight our neighborhoods.”

    The proposed ordinance gives the city another tool to abate nuisance properties and address landlords who fail to take action against the tenants causing the problems. It will also strengthen the city’s ability to use sections of state law to address problem properties because the city must be able to show it has tried to work with the property owner.

    When there are problems at a residence, police will send a letter to the property owner that police, fire or EMS was dispatched to their property because of criminal activity, a disturbance, a code violation, an overdose or other medical emergency. The letter also lets them know if someone was arrested. The letter notes that if drug activity was found during that incident and the tenant was not evicted or the landlord failed or refused to take action, the landlord could also be charged with permitting drug abuse, a first-degree misdemeanor, or see that charge elevated to a fifth-degree felony if drug trafficking is found and verified.

    If a property is deemed to be a chronic nuisance property, or if there is felony drug activity found and the landlord does nothing to address the problem, some of the penalties include billing the landlord for the cost of sending police, fire or EMS responding to a call; civil penalties ranging from $150 to $1,000; being charged with a minor misdemeanor with a fine of $150 for violating the ordinance and separate offenses could be charged for each day the violation occurs or continues; and/or revoking occupancy, health or other permits granted to the property owner.

    The proposed ordinance has provisions to protect landlords who do attempt to correct the problems; or who were unaware of the nuisance, such as being out of town and tried to correct the problem upon return; or after doing a background check on a tenant and was in the process of eviction when an offense occurred. The draft ordinance also includes an appeal process.

    “It is my belief that those landlords and the homeowners in the neighborhood should not be subjected to ongoing nuisance issues by the few owners who choose not to be responsible with their properties,” Adkins recently said. “This is a quality of life and property value issue. No one wants to live next door to, or to purchase a house next to a continuing code enforcement violation or ongoing criminal activity.”

Correct, Vet--Admin was the major culprit in creating the mass influx of Section 8, and YES--section 8 tenants are more lax in maintaining landlord properties since they can simply move on to another property.

Still--this ordinance is a turning point to fixing the situation. Landlords who don't care will be made to either care or leave. Tenants who don't care will be pressured to do better or leave. At least we hope so.

Good move by Council that took far too long to happen.

Error

The good 'ole boy club can do anything they wish and it is condoned by council (their puppets) and both the council and the city leaders are directed by the MMF (the true power in town).

I would imagine Adkins and the city building power structure don't feel a need to explain anything to the people of this city, but a certain small inner circle group knows exactly what they are doing at any given time. They have been in charge for so long, have received little to no resistance for so long, and have run the city as a dictatorship for so long, they are not threatened in the least and feel invincible. The school board is the same way. They haven't listened to most people's wishes for the district in decades, have relied on their supporters and have done what they want. That's why the schools are such a cluster. No one on their side wants to change the failing ways. Business as usual. Why should they care as long as their yes voter support block keeps out-voting the no voters and passing the levies, they could care less about why the rest of us are fed up with the schools.

The rules are made up in their favor and are to their advantage depending on the situation of the moment. That's also how Les Landen interprets the laws in this city. They change depending on the circumstances.

All of these things contribute to the abuse of the majority, the catering to the select few and the overall disgust felt by most in the city.

Even if the lawsuits drain this city of revenue, I don't think the city leaders are smart enough to realize the aftermath and if they did understand, I don't think they would care, they are that obtuse.

I heard that the Dougmeister wants to replicate the tall grass prairies of Kansas in the second ward? There's lots of room for critters to roam now!

“The problem we have had in the past is that we’ve never combined MPD, MFD and Community Revitalization code enforcement records to identify problem properties. This is an effort to do exactly that,” said City Manager Doug Adkins.      “It’s about reducing crime and other nuisance activity long term by better rental practices, resulting in fewer calls for city services. It is not a revenue generator or cost-savings measure. It’s a neighborhood quality of life improvement measure.”

You would have thought by now that the very nature of the "crime/nuisance/problem property situations", created by the ghetto building theme brought to town by the Gilleland Administration, of which Adkins was a part, would have prompted tracking and monitoring long ago. It is just now that the Adkins bunch sees the need to identify habitual negative situations?

"In addition, the proposed ordinance would also enable the city to take action against the owner to recover ongoing future city costs in responding to and abating those nuisances if the owner chooses not to take action to correct the situation."

    "“This is not intended to be a “gotcha” ordinance, but a long-term solution to ongoing tenant issues,” Adkins said""

Good luck with that Adkins.


“This is a good start to reshape and rethink how we do things and to go forward to make things better for the future of Middletown,” Bohannon said. “The big winner in all of this is the city.”

And just how do the majority of the people in town, who are not Section 8 property owners, win Mr. Bohannon? We watch the city deteriorate as we get closer to ghetto status each day, while a small contingent of Section 8 property owners are paid using our tax dollars to lower the class of the city by providing housing to people who have a habit of not caring about too much of anything except their handouts. Is this "winning"?

Please read this entire legislation because it applies to EVERY property in Middletown...not just rental property as they would like you to believe.
I have only added the first page below...
You are giving City Hall unlimited power

http://www.cityofmiddletown.org/docs/council/04072015_w.pdf

Page 154


LEGISLATION ITEM 7

EXHIBIT “A” CHAPTER 1456 (CHRONIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT)

SECTION 1. PURPOSE

(a) Chronic nuisance properties present health, safety, and welfare concerns to the City, and have a negative impact upon the quality of life, safety, and health of the neighborhoods in which they are located. This Chapter is enacted to remedy nuisance activities that occur throughout the City and affect citizens by providing a process for abatement.
(b) Chronic nuisance properties are a financial burden to the City due to the calls for service for nuisance activities that occur repeatedly on these properties. This Chapter is a means to lessen that burden and hold accountable those persons responsible for such properties.

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS

(a) Chronic Nuisance Property. (1) Property on which three or more nuisance activities and/or two felony drug activities have occurred during any 6 month period; or (2) Property on which or within 300 feet of which any person associated with the property has engaged in three or more nuisance activities within any 6 month period.
(b) Nuisance Activities. Any of the following activities, behaviors, or criminal conduct:
(1) Any Falsification violation under Section 606.10, Obstruction of Official Business violation under Section 606.14, Obstructing Justice violation under Section 606.15, Resisting Arrest violation under Section 606.16, Compliance with Lawful Order of Police Officer; Fleeing violation under Section 606.165, Misuse of 9-1-1 System violation under Section 606.29, Failure to Disclose Personal Information violation under Section 606.30 of the Codified Ordinances;
(2) Any alcohol violations under Chapter 612 of the Codified Ordinances;
(3) Any animal violations under Chapter 618 of the Codified Ordinances;
(4) Any drug violation under Chapter 624 of the Codified Ordinances;
(5) Any gambling violation under Chapter 630 of the Codified Ordinances;
(6) Any offense against another person under Ch
(7) Any violation under Section 636.20, Illegal Distribution of Cigarettes or Other Tobacco Products;
(8) Any offense against property under Chapter 642 of the Codified Ordinances;
(9) Any disorderly conduct, disturbance of the peace, or other violation under Chapter 648 of the Codified Ordinances;
(10) Any health, safety, or sanitation violation under Chapter 660 of the Codified Ordinances;
(11) Any sex offense under Chapter 666 of the Codified Ordinances;
(12) Any weapons, explosives, firearm, or handgun violation under Chapter 672 of the Codified Ordinances;
(13) Any property maintenance violation, including but not limited to Sections 1436, Property Maintenance, Chapter 678, Weeds, Chapter 1030 Trees, Shrubs, and Plants of the Codified Ordinances; or
(14) Any activity or violation indicated to be a public nuisance anywhere in the Codified Ordinances.
(15) Any activity or violation listed above under the corresponding sections of the Ohio Revised Code. 

Yep..as we have stated on this blog many times before....City Hall needs to clean up its own house before they make demands on the citizens.

...and they still have not finished cleaning up the dump site between the East side fence line of the Middletown Cemetery and University Blvd, that I reported 10 years ago. 

"fat library levy"??? It's a renewal you moron. But go ahead and vote NO and when they have to reduce hours  they can send all the homeless, indigent folk to YOUR house to kill time-how 'bout that????

FmrMide81
I stopped going to the library...
Isn't it true that the library is now having a major problem with bedbugs?

Many of us were on board with the making of city ordinances more friendly.

However, the focus has changed away from city friendly, to codified ordinances which are vague and ambivalent.

Correct it and get the right focus. Highlighting the decline of city resources through this ordinance brings unwanted negative visibility.   

Vivian,
      Then why not start a petition to have term limits for council. That would solve a lot of problems for all taxpaying citizens. Some of our younger taxpaying citizens need to step up to the plate and make certain they get enough signatures on the petition so that city council, city manager and the law director can't manipulate it and keep it from getting on the ballot.
         pn

I want to help, fact guy
I want to be a part of turning this city around, and I think that I have enough local experience and public confidence to do so.

That being said, I agree with most of what Ms.Moon just posted.

We need to stop being divided by location and thinking. There is room for everyone and something for everywhere.
But most of us can't penetrate the inner circle of power and enablers.
Are we really that un-important?
Can they really do it without us?