Author |
Topic: Is Limiting The Number Of Unrelated Tenants... (Read 2917 times) |
|
*****
Administrator
member is offline
 
 
Gender: 
Posts: 68
|
 |
Is Limiting The Number Of Unrelated Tenants...
« Thread started on: Nov 17th, 2002, 09:13am » |
|
You know the story. Families and homeowners city-wide have had it with the conversion of homes in thier neighborhoods from traditionally single family, owner occupied homes, to rental homes often, but not always, leased by groups of students. The students, and landlords, until recently, appeared to be fighting a losing battle. More than a few year round residents, have become quite insensed over the years. The nieghborhoods pushing the issue, are home to a few of the more valuable, of city addresses. Many Salisburians who now own businesses, and offices either grew up, lived, or had friends who lived in these nieghborhoods at one time or another, if not to this day. It would seem to anyone affected by the phenomina of the change-over (from owner occupied to rentals), that whatever it takes to stop this, will surely be done. But lately, it's not such a certainty. If I am correct, the passing of the ordinance has been been delayed, and the freeze on the conversions stands for the time being. I did see the poll in the local paper, and it clearly indicated, a large majority of the community responding, felt the ordinance was a bad idea. Be a part of SADBB poll by clicking on the link below:
http://sadusone.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=housing&action=display&num=1037543312
I hope you'll express your thoughts on this in your own words afterward, but try the poll.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 17th, 2002, 11:03am by ***** » |
 Logged
|
|
|
|
Young
Guest
|
|
NO!
« Reply #1 on: Nov 19th, 2002, 3:41pm » |
|
Limiting the number of unrelated tenants in a building is the wrong way to go about solving our problems. I do not see ANY way in which this will solve the problems of our communities. I do agree that there are problems, but there must be other solutions.
You can refer to my Letter to the Editor in the Daily Times, published on Monday Nov. 18, 2002, for reasons why the legislation would do us no good. Property value will go DOWN, asthetic appeal of residences will decline, parties will remain as bothersome, poverty and crime will increase.
It is also a strong ethical question as to if the county has the right to regulate homes in such a manner. The 4 limit was originally established to prevent brothels. The 2 would require a complete change in the writing of the law, and will have no constitutional basis.
One alternative proposal would be to limit the percentage of rental-to-owner occupied houses in salisbury. The current percentage would keep rentals from sprawling into communities any further, as 4-2 would not. I see no reason why such a proposal would not be acceptable to both sides, as both will win- and will win far more than 4-2 would for any party. Please e-mail compromise4salisbury@hotmail.com with your opinion on this proposal, and with any other ideas for working together to find a fair compromise in salisbury.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
*****
Administrator
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 68
|
|
NEWS BRIEF!!
« Reply #2 on: Nov 21st, 2002, 9:50pm » |
|
Only yesterday(Wednesday), the Salisbury City Council made ammendments to the proposed rental housing ordinance. They'll likely have thier final vote on Monday, but the fact they worked on ammending it, strongly hints toward the outcome of that vote.
Some of the newly clarified details of the bill are as follows:
Rules take effect 7/95
No more than 2 unrelated persons living in the same house in neighborhoods zoned as 'family neighborhoods'
Up to 4 said persons allowed to occupy dwellings in specifically zoned areas of town
Possible exceptions, contingent on 7 pre-set stipulations, in addition to, a $150.00 fee for the exemption, which will allow up to 4 unrelated persons/dwelling.
As of this posting, the proposed bill is not formally drafted, and it's legalities have yet to be officially scrutinized and approved by counsel. The council is meeting as I'm posting this, and a landlord licensing system is reportedly being discussed there. The enforcement of the rental occupancy related ordinance, has been said to be dependent on the landlords initiative, in this case, that refers to the possibility of losing thier license and applicable fees for such, if they're found to be outside of the regulations.
I got my information from The Daily Times, 11/21, p.3.
There is a link to the Times, on this forum, under General/Links.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
erinys
member
member is offline
Gender: 
Posts: 5
|
|
Is it legal?
« Reply #3 on: Nov 23rd, 2002, 6:19pm » |
|
I don't think it is. In my community, they've been forced to rewrite a similar ordinance based upon a US Supreme Court ruling that declared that any group of 5 unrelated individuals sharing a domicile is a "family," and could not be discriminated against, rendering the ordinance useless.
Another method of controlling the kudzu-like spread of rentals has to be found. In some places, they say the number of residents can be no more than the number of bedrooms plus one. So, my college slumlordjust put up more drywall to create 5 x 6 foot closets and called them bedrooms. Perhaps officially only half the rooms in a domicile could be declared bedrooms? Maybe it should be square footage based - certainly no more than one person should reside in my recent 400 square foot apartment. But lord help the working parents who popped out 3 daughters before finally getting that all-important son, or anyone Catholic.
But seriously, what is this all about? Property values and bad behavior. No one should care if college students live next door as long as their property values don't erode, their mailboxes aren't bashed, their gas tanks aren't siphoned, their windshields aren't smashed, and their sleep, peace, view and parking spots aren't disturbed.
So:
All rental properties should have on property parking for all residents. Ideally, there should be parking for all visitors as well.
All rental properties should be attractively landscaped. Ideally, that landscaping should include 100% coverage by year-round ground covers (the dreaded, mosquito-ridden ivy?), only allowing a path to the door, to prevent nuisance outdoor activities.
All rental properties should be maintained - no peeling paint, sagging gutters, or storm-less doors. The owner of any property with orange expanding foam sealer visible from the street for more than 7 days would be orange-foamed to death.
The permissable decibel level should be lowered - stamp out loud car stereos and excessive teenage fun at the same time. Eliminate loud gas lawn mowers and blowers in favor of quieter, environmentally friendly electric ones to boot.
The ideal situation would be college students living in the sticks on farms. Lots of land, so little disruption of neighbors, lots of on site parking, plenty of room to crash or camp out after too much booze to drive - tried it, liked it, neighbors didn't call the cops, farmer could meet his mortgage even in a depressed farm economy - everyone won. Ok, it would use more gas, but if people would just realize that buying foreign oil from countries with individuals supportive of terrorists aims FINANCES TERRORISM, maybe some of them will dump their gas guzzling SUVs in favor of cute little Golf TDIs. Hey, it'd do more good than a freakin' flag sticker . . . .
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
*****
Administrator
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 68
|
|
Re: Is Limiting The Number Of Unrelated Tenants...
« Reply #5 on: Feb 3rd, 2003, 1:33pm » |
|
The students in my neighborhood are noticably worse neighbors since all of this started. Now when the party's over they really just toss the trash. It's their visitors doing it, but it's awful to feel that lack of respect when I look out the window in the morning. Can't really blame them, this town su(ks, has a su(ky government, su(ky voters, su(ky su(ky su(ky Salisbury. I wish I had left for good when I was the their age.
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 3rd, 2003, 1:35pm by ***** » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Julie
member
member is offline
Posts: 2
|
|
Re: Is Limiting The Number Of Unrelated Tenants...
« Reply #6 on: Feb 14th, 2005, 12:02am » |
|
We're working to change all that...but we'll need every unhappy voice to support us! Get involved in your neighborhood association... Become a "squeaky wheel"... consider voting someone new into city offices... let's work together for our future!
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
... or whatever the heck that is you got there. You know you want an SUV?!