Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Salvio points out Blight Ordinance Charges Landlord for Tenant Damages.

Gleanings from two recent Herald subject articles regarding, “slumlords” in New Britain and a
“three-pronged” initiative of the Board of Education to improve educational success for NB public school students.

First, the latest additions to the “Blight Ordinance.” Recently, I received a copy of a letter - sent to a friend of mine - from the, Connecticut Property Owners Alliance, Inc. Among other things, excerpts from the letter state,

“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.

... If a tenant broke all 20 windows and the city ignores [the fact that] the tenant caused 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 [ordinance] 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.”

The Herald has a complete copy of this letter and will investigate and I hope comment, soon.

Within the past couple of weeks a Herald article reporting on a NB BOE meeting, mentioned a three pronged plan/approach that the school district would be using to improve educational performance - K-12 - of district students. In comments on the on-line version of the Herald I mentioned that I felt the district should have included changes in their teacher evaluation model that would include that teachers would be formally evaluated at least twice per year by a qualified administrator; not an informal walk through but a complete formal evaluation.

As the people of Connecticut know, Governor Malloy and the General Assembly are preparing to work on educational reform in the state’s public schools. Readers also have been informed that the state’s largest teachers union has called for changes in the state’s teacher evaluation and tenure policies. The union - Connecticut Education Association - wants teachers to be evaluated every year using a number of factors, not simply test scores.

Assistant Professor of Education, Edmund C. Higgins of Quinnipiac University says the standards to be used for evaluation should be developed by the state, not the individual districts and that evaluators must be trained to conduct effective and consistent evaluations.

There should have been four prongs.


Louis Salvio

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I hope Mr. Bozek is happy now!

Anonymous said...

Bozo is only happy when he is throwing monkey wrenches into progress.

Anonymous said...

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2010/12/neighborhood_cleanup_municipal.html

Anonymous said...

When a tenant knowingly caused damage to a building, contributing to it's blight, the tenant should be made to pay the fine, especially if the landlord had been diligent in keeping the property otherwise good condition.

Mary said...

All Landlords please come to a meeting Feb.2, 2012 at 5:30pm at the Belvedere Resturant, Board St, New Britain, Ct (across from Farmington Bank)to discuss the Blight Ordinance. You have rights.

Anonymous said...

Having provided local housing to tenants for more than twenty years, taking proper care to provide safe, well kept rentals is important for all. However, from experience, many tenants have little regard for the property owner and his/her investment. There is an entitlement mentality and little or no support for the property owner. The blight ordinance places the responsibility and punishment once again on the landlord. It is a vicious cycle and mirrors many other handout programs. The recipiant need do nothing for oneself only take and abuse.

It is a backward idea and thought process. Private property owners and willing landlords should be appreciated for the service they provide and the local ordinances should work hand in hand with them to protect the property from blight and abuse. Why is the landlord made out to be the evil one? Especially by this administration? Has Mayor O'Brien ever been a landlord?

Anonymous said...

That is precisely why they changed the ordinance, to protect the rights of the tenants. How ignorant can they be or is this being done on purpose to empty the pockets of those with "MONEY"?? This is class warfare by this administration to attempt to collect monies that presently do not exist in the budget. Last year the city collected only around $5k in fines and this Mayor thinks he can make millions off of the changes he had passes? Can anyone say delusional???

The Thorn said...

The delusional mayor will end up owning many of these properties as more owners simply walk away from their responsibilities because of the amount of the fines owed on the property. The city will foreclose on these dumps and then will own more and more slums throughout the city. I have no doubt the master plan will be for the taxpayers to foot the bill for fixing up the properties and then the city will rent them out for free or very little rent, much less than would ever cover the cost of running the buildings. The end result will be that single home owners will be footing the bill for hundreds and eventually thousands of tenants to live "free" off those of us that are still dumb enough to work and pay taxes. Then, the socialists in power will have completed their total redistribution of wealth from you evil rich people who really don't need all that money to those poor people on welfare who deserve your money more than you do.

Mary said...

All Landlords should come to the meeting on Feb. 2,2012 at the Belvedere Resturant at 5:30pm. It is being sponsored by the Conneticut Property Owners Alliance Inc. You have rights as a landlord. We need everyone to come to help.

Anonymous said...

It is a priveledge to have the opportunity to reside on and within someone's private property. Treat that opportunity with respect.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

It is a priveledge to have the opportunity to reside on and within someone's private property. Treat that opportunity with respect.



It is even better to live for free for the rest of your life in a property owned and maintained by the city while other fools work hard to pay taxes to support your free ride!

Anonymous said...

Does the city have a Board of Finance yet? All this talk about blight, what about the budget.

slumdog millon dollar man said...

Remember this,not all landlords are slumlords,but all slumlords are landlords !

Anonymous said...

Remember this, persecution will convert all landlords into slumlords.

Anonymous said...

BLIGHT ORDINANCE / NEW BRITAIN CT

Sec. 7-40. Declaration of policy.
This article is authorized pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes, section 7-148(c)(7)(H)(xv).

It is hereby found and declared that there exists within the City of New Britain a large number of real properties which are vacant and in a blighted condition and that the existence of such vacant and blighted properties contributes to the decline of
neighborhoods.

It is further found that the existence of vacant and blighted properties adversely affects the economic well being of the city and is inimical to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the city.

It is further found that many of the vacant and blighted properties can be rehabilitated, reconstructed, demolished and/or reused so as to provide decent, safe and sanitary housing and ancillary commercial facilities and that such rehabilitation, reconstruction, demolition and/or reuse would eliminate, remedy and prevent the adverse conditions described above.
(Ord. of 11-00)

Sec. 7-41. Creation or maintenance of blighted premises prohibited. No owner of real property located in the City of New Britain shall allow, create, maintain, permit the continuance of, or cause to be created or maintained any blighted premises.

Anonymous said...

As more and more landlords simply walk away from their properties, the city will become the biggest slum lord owning all these rat traps.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous/Blight Oridinance:
Will the city help the landlords evict tenants who do damage to their property. As anyoone knows this a long process with out any rent money being paid.

Web Tracking
Online Florist