Dear Frank,
Below is a copy of the Hartford Courant article dated January 11, 2012 referencing "Slumlords" in
New Britain, We agree blight is a serious issue in many cities and the CT Property Owners Alliance
is ready to help eliminate urban blight, but this article caused us concern.
If the ordinance's intent is to address vacant and abandoned structures, it should state so; if it is
targeting occupied properties, then there are 2 sides responsible for blight in occupied properties
and it appears only one side is being held accountable according to what we read.
The new ordinance increases fines and Phil Sherwood, communications director for the New
Britain Mayor's office is quoted as saying; "It's not just $250 a day. If you have 20 broken
windows, ifs $250 for each window. That will get attention," Well, it certainly has the CT
Property Owners Alliance's attention!
who
If a tenant broke all 20 windows and the city ignores the tenan~aused the damage and
simply fines the landlord, New Britain and its taxpayers must be/prepared to spend significant
legal costs and pay potentially staggering damage awards from "Due Process" and "Regulatory
Takings" lawsuits brought forward by the property owners.
The article fails to mention any tenant responsibility for the cause of urban blight or how
often New Britain authorities have enforced Public Act 96-74; a law established 15 years ago
that created felony and misdemeanor classifications for crimes by tenants damaging a landlords
property; the most common cause of blight.
Without an even handed and balanced approach to blight laws and a focus on all the responsible
parties creating blight, this effort will fall hopelessly short of its noble goal.
SOME OF OUR INITIAL CONCERNS;
• The policy gives New Britain a stigma as being unfriendly to business
- --
Noncollectable fines and liens will lower property values
Creates a possibility of overzealous enforcement from political vendettas
Impacts property owners with destructive renters, not just slumlords
Will cost taxpayers more money for administration than it collects in fines
Creates more property abandonment
We are now scheduling meetings because of this matter and will keep you informed. Our ultimate
fear is this ordinance may have the exact opposite affect of its stated intent, the ordinance will
create more urban blight in New Britain and lower property values further!
Sincerely,
Robert De Cosmo
Connecticut Prooertv Ownpr!O Allioml'o Inc."
This ordinance is another thoughtless policy. When the fines out weight the market value of the property and the property has no value,does the city become responsible and were is the money coming from to fix these properties. We can not count on the unpaid fines. As the Mayor stated at the BOE meeting on Thursday evening, the fine were to help the education budget,when asked would the taxpayers be responsilbe for this newly created abandoment of property, He state we will find the money, does this mean a increase in taxes since fines will not be paid? Liens on property will end in abandoment.
ReplyDeleteMary is 100% correct. More owners are simply going to walk away leaving the city owning slums all over the place, and where is the city going to find the money to fix these properties that they are about to go into the business of running?
ReplyDeleteAccording to a national poll,Coon. is the worst state to retire and it will continue to be number one unless we change our business attitude.
ReplyDeleteAs the Connecticut Property Owners Alliance pointed out, the fines levied are all aimed at the property owners. The ordinance will cause immense trouble as written because sometimes the blight is caused by vandalism by the tenants. Property owners are often the victims of their tenants. The ordinance needs some serious changes before the city starts to levy fines. It was a mistake for O'Brien to state that the ordinance will go into effect immediately.
ReplyDeleteA supposed $11 million budget gap and it's going to get filled with broken window fees? It's that simple?
ReplyDelete