Adkins vs. landlords

Bocephus wrote: Nothing like seeing a house on your street that some slumlord paid pennies of its worth for witha huge banner that says "SECTION 8 RENTAL" on it. I think these people should be held more responsible for their tenants,all they care about is if someone can pay them the rent so they can buy up more and more foreclosed houses to rent.

I know how you feel, but they're generally not getting these properties for one penny less than they're worth.  In a lot of cases these properties are offered to owner occupants first, and when no one bites they're offered to investors and a bidding war usually ensues.

Bocephus wrote: TudorBrown wrote: Bocephus wrote: Nothing like seeing a house on your street that some slumlord paid pennies of its worth for witha huge banner that says "SECTION 8 RENTAL" on it. I think these people should be held more responsible for their tenants,all they care about is if someone can pay them the rent so they can buy up more and more foreclosed houses to rent. I know how you feel, but they're generally not getting these properties for one penny less than they're worth.  In a lot of cases these properties are offered to owner occupants first, and when no one bites they're offered to investors and a bidding war usually ensues.   How would some of these "landlords" like it if scum bags started moving in all around them with loud music and drunks outside all summer long and watching people go in and out of the house next door to you all day and part of the night ? Then come tell us how what you think of it? Oh no you wont see it because they live in nicer areas where they dont have any section 8.

Shouldn't you be placing blame on the section 8 program, and government than?

The landlords would be fools not to take advantage of section 8 money as long as it is available.

Bocephus wrote: TudorBrown wrote: Bocephus wrote: Nothing like seeing a house on your street that some slumlord paid pennies of its worth for witha huge banner that says "SECTION 8 RENTAL" on it. I think these people should be held more responsible for their tenants,all they care about is if someone can pay them the rent so they can buy up more and more foreclosed houses to rent. I know how you feel, but they're generally not getting these properties for one penny less than they're worth.  In a lot of cases these properties are offered to owner occupants first, and when no one bites they're offered to investors and a bidding war usually ensues.   How would some of these "landlords" like it if scum bags started moving in all around them with loud music and drunks outside all summer long and watching people go in and out of the house next door to you all day and part of the night ? Then come tell us how what you think of it? Oh no you wont see it because they live in nicer areas where they dont have any section 8.

Rather ironic the city doesn't wish to comply with HUD and NSP guidelines and diverst fed money to areas not entitled, but over-regulates the landlords. It isn't 25.00/ property, its 25.00 per unit, including the tendants, so they can also try to collect tax revenue.

Middletown just wants the cash, nothing else. Adkins already building an empire, he needs to be put in check, and his reign pulled back. Adding more staff for his span of control doesn't provide a reason for this greatly over-reaching effort disguised to control Section 8 and housing. What happened to all the effort he made a few years ago to give other cities and the residents credit to take their voucher elsewhere? Neither the tenant nor the cities wanted them----period.

Quit blaming those in need. It isn't Section 8 people who are deplorable, its the city that has used them for the 10% processing fee the city earms $ Mm on annually, and that is why Section 8 is going noweher. This other over-zealous regulatory attempt is nothing but an attempt to grow the cash cow to a richer cash cow. It has nothing to do with eliminating it. Sorry sj, disagree with Adkins motives, and know this city too well to ever believe there is a strategic thrust behind this. There isn't other than making more $$$ for the Mm $$$ from the processing fee city takes.

And you wonder why there aren't buyers for homes in Middletown? Its called city council, city leadership, feed the beast, and taxes, taxes, taxes. 

acclaro,

Although I am not necessarily in agreement with your conclusions, your post was very informative. However, can you further explain your claim that the city doesn't wish to comply with HUD and NSP guidlines? As a landlord, I have seen a concerted effort in recent months to better comply with HUD regulations. The MPHA inspections are more stringent than they have ever been. In addition, I have a personal friend that is involved with Middletown's NSP efforts and I am told that the city is following the guidelines "strictly by the book". Can you provide some detail to support your HUD/NSP related statement?

In conclusion, I agree that the historical decisions of our city government has left much to be desired. However, is it fair to hold current administrators accountable for the mistakes of their predecessors? If anything, the prior mistakes make their jobs more difficult. In my opinion, they deserve the benefit of a doubt until their decisions and/or policies are "proven" wrong.

TonyB,

Based on the videos that I have watched, the articles that I have read, and the many questions that I have asked on this subject, the primary "driver" behind the registration concept is to gain the legal tools needed to hold "out of town" property owners (including banks) accountable for their vacant and rental properties. Without the registration process, the city doesn't have the legal leverage it needs to serve notice on these irresponsible property owners. The city is losing a huge amount in potential tax revenues and doesn't, at this time, have the legal means to do anything about it. I have heard the argument that we landlords are already required to register our properties with the county, but if you check into it, you will discover that only 1 in about every 7 rental properties is actually registered. Constitutionally, you can't single out only "out of town" property owners to comply with the regulations, thus the requirement falls on all of us. As a "local" landlord, I recognize that this new regulation will cost me money, but I feel that it is a small price to pay if it allows the city to take control of the blighted properties that are so prevalent in our community. If Mr. Adkins' strategy is correct (and I think that it is), both the city and its responsible landlords win!

TonyB,

There are laws in place. The problem is that the city can't utilize them because that can't "serve" out of town landlords (code violations) or banks (foreclosed, vacant, properties). The proposed registration is the "tool" that they need to force these land owners (including banks) to be responsible and maintain their properties.

If the landowner refuses to register, the proposed ordinance will allow the city to impose penalties for non-compliance. If the penalties are ignored and become deliquent, the city can lien the property. After a period of time and due diligence has been followed, the city will have the ability to seize the property.

The "idea" of government seizing someone elses property doesn't sound right on the surface, but, in my opinion, it protects those of us that are complying with housing codes, and are paying our taxes. It's offensive to me to know that large, out of town banks can and are skirting the local ordinances and are getting away with it. It is also offensive to think that an out of state landlord can ignore the rules that we have to play by. As you stated, "responsible citizenship is in everyone's best interest". This is the city's way of compeling individuals (and banks) to be responsible.