Landlord licensing letter to city council

[tony la]

Letter to city council from Illinois Association of Realtors and the Westtownsboard of Realtors

[OakParkSpartan]

I don't have a problem with the first two points.

The voluntary course is laughable, as we know no landlord is going to attend.  But gutting the ordinance was Lovero's goal, wasn't it?  Why doesn't Bobby support fighting against crime?

[Northside7]

Brian,

That ordinance has nothing to do with crime.  You know as well as I do that there is more riff raff in those two and three flats in the 1900 block of Kenilworth than in the buildings the mayor is targeting.

[AngieBear68]

I don't have a problem with the first two points.

The voluntary course is laughable, as we know no landlord is going to attend.  But gutting the ordinance was Lovero's goal, wasn't it?  Why doesn't Bobby support fighting against crime?

Didn't Lovero (and others) vote against this because they didn't want to spend money the city didn't have to hire an inspector for this purpose. I think Lovero has proposed a modified version of this that includes all rental properties, but targets only those where police have been called to on more than one occasion. Seems to make sense, although I don't know the exact language.

[Bonster]

The language was lax toward property owners, something to the effect that this become mandatory only if a dwelling has had two complaints every 6 months.

Furthermore,  Lovero also stated "landlords are not solidly behind this," which is rather ignorant as it's not their decision.


Funny that regular citizens can come up with a better mod than a lawyer, like Nazerac did.  (It is true, though, that Naz is of higher intelligence and possess greater logic.)

I may support that if it is two citations any 12 months, not six months AND
All other properties owned by that landlord would also fall under the ordinance  AND
what happens after a tenant leaves?  When a new tenant comes in, all proporties of that landlord are still under the ordinance.

If no visits/citations occur of 24 months, then the properties no longer fall under the ordinance.

Now that's how you reduce overhead AND take a bite out of crime.

[Ted]

Letter to city council from Illinois Association of Realtors and the Westtownsboard of Realtors

     I don't see a letter?

[Nazerac]

Funny that regular citizens can come up with a better mod than a lawyer, like Nazerac did.  (It is true, though, that Naz is of higher intelligence and possess greater logic.)

Now that's how you reduce overhead AND take a bite out of crime.

Oh thank you, I will think about this compliment as I shovel the snow tomorrow.  It will make me feel all warm and fuzzy!

[OakParkSpartan]

Brian,

That ordinance has nothing to do with crime.  You know as well as I do that there is more riff raff in those two and three flats in the 1900 block of Kenilworth than in the buildings the mayor is targeting.

One less riff raff as they threw their black garbage bags in the back of a U-Haul pickup on Saturday! 

I see more crap thrown out in the alleys by people that are not far up the economic ladder.  Furniture, clothing, electronics.  But then again, maybe that is why they are not far up that ladder...they don't respect their own possessions, let alone anyone else's.

[OakParkSpartan]

I don't have a problem with the first two points.

The voluntary course is laughable, as we know no landlord is going to attend.  But gutting the ordinance was Lovero's goal, wasn't it?  Why doesn't Bobby support fighting against crime?

Didn't Lovero (and others) vote against this because they didn't want to spend money the city didn't have to hire an inspector for this purpose. I think Lovero has proposed a modified version of this that includes all rental properties, but targets only those where police have been called to on more than one occasion. Seems to make sense, although I don't know the exact language.

They didn't want to pay to have 1 inspector.  When you add in all the 2/3/4 flats, how many people would he be willing to hire then? 

The whole point of throwing up these objections by Lovero is to gain support from the large landlords.  The meeting where Lovero voted against their interests, I walked out behind the 3 that were there representing the landlord association.  One of them said "Lovero let us down". 

[Northside7]

I don't have a problem with the first two points.

The voluntary course is laughable, as we know no landlord is going to attend.  But gutting the ordinance was Lovero's goal, wasn't it?  Why doesn't Bobby support fighting against crime?

Didn't Lovero (and others) vote against this because they didn't want to spend money the city didn't have to hire an inspector for this purpose. I think Lovero has proposed a modified version of this that includes all rental properties, but targets only those where police have been called to on more than one occasion. Seems to make sense, although I don't know the exact language.

They didn't want to pay to have 1 inspector.  When you add in all the 2/3/4 flats, how many people would he be willing to hire then? 

The whole point of throwing up these objections by Lovero is to gain support from the large landlords.  The meeting where Lovero voted against their interests, I walked out behind the 3 that were there representing the landlord association.  One of them said "Lovero let us down". 

Brian,

So with your last post, I assume you agree with me that there is more riff raff in the smaller buildings.  I don't mean any disrespect but I really don't think you get it.  If you place too many overburdensome restrictions on these building owners with licensing and what not, they will cease to invest in your community.
Furthermore, in regards to Bobby saying that we were initially told that the building owners were behind this ordinance but are now finding out they are not, doesn't that tell you anything?  It tells me that this brainchild of an ordinance was conjured up by the mayor or someone in his administration and the council was lied to.  The reason behind it was to gain access to peoples buildings that they would otherwise not have.  Read the ordinance, it says that the building director at his sole discretion has the right to inspect a building as many times as he wants.  The ordinance stinks.  I would be curious to know if Mr. Slinkman thinks he needs the city to tell him how to manage his buildings.  I would like to know how he feels about all of the fees he has had to pay under this new ordinance under these times of economic stress.  The only problem is that again Bobby lacks the courage to make a difficult decision.  If I remember correctly, Phelan tried to repeal the ordinance but Bobby, being the ballless wonder that he is had to compromise and "tweak" the ordinance.  Phelan was correct in comparing this ordinance to the gestapo or whatever he referred to it as.  It is a police state.
What this ordinance does is discriminate against one type of property owner but not many others.  The city will get sued over this ordinance and the only ones benefitting from it is Odelson and Sterk as they continue to bill away the hours.  In case you didn't notice, your city has problems.

[OakParkSpartan]

I do get it.  But if they are unwilling to have one inspector, how in god's name would this ever work with no inspector and a much larger number of buildings?

I guess that you view "investment" as positive no matter what.  What I see is absentee landlords who rent to anyone willing to pay them and with any background.  That leads to crime and a deterioration of neighborhoods and individual blocks.  See 1900 Grove and that building down near Bear for example.  If the landlords were renting to a better quality tenant (law abiding) it would be a net positive for the community. 

Phelan tried repealing the ordinance because Phelan owns property in town that might or might not be covered.  He admitted that at council when he blurted it out.

[Northside7]

Again, the problem with the absentee owners is for the most part with the smaller buildings.  I know the area where you live and it is quickly becoming a sewer.  In regards to Phelan, he complied with the ordinance.  The mayor is so full of sh*t telling the council that evening that something like 90% of the building owners complied.  They complied because they were threatened with a $750 fine per day every day they were not in compliance.  Talk about the gestapo.  Also, I feel it would be very unlikely he would try to repeal the ordinance simply because he owned one or two buildings that might affect him under the ordinance.  I am still curious to know how Mr. Slinkman feels about the ordinance.  He has been amazingly quiet about this, something that hits so close to home for him.  He is usually much more vocal.  Again, not a criticism, just an observance.

[OakParkSpartan]

Again, the problem with the absentee owners is for the most part with the smaller buildings.  I know the area where you live and it is quickly becoming a sewer.  In regards to Phelan, he complied with the ordinance.  The mayor is so full of sh*t telling the council that evening that something like 90% of the building owners complied.  They complied because they were threatened with a $750 fine per day every day they were not in compliance.  Talk about the gestapo.  Also, I feel it would be very unlikely he would try to repeal the ordinance simply because he owned one or two buildings that might affect him under the ordinance.  I am still curious to know how Mr. Slinkman feels about the ordinance.  He has been amazingly quiet about this, something that hits so close to home for him.  He is usually much more vocal.  Again, not a criticism, just an observance.

In some cases.  But 1900 Grove was large buildings.  And there are some buildings down in the Depot that always have people hanging outside of them.

You need to start somewhere, and since there is a much smaller number of large buildings, that seems like a logical place to begin.  Your alternative would be to do nothing.

[Bonster]

"The only problem is that again Bobby lacks the courage to make a difficult decision.  If I remember correctly, Phelan tried to repeal the ordinance but Bobby, being the ballless wonder that he is had to compromise and "tweak" the ordinance. "


Is that really the case, N7 -  Bobby has no scrotum?  Or could it be that living in that area (1800 block) he knows that something needs to be done?   (yet lacks any novel, original thought)
MAYBE ... his lack of stones won't allow him to go against what he preaches about with McCheese:  he couldn't POSSIBLY create another position when he really wants to fork over more cash to............others? 

[Nazerac]

I can understand why some building owners are complaining about having to attend training.  That can be changed through an online class or something else.

I can also understand the resistance to having Community Social/Community Meeting introducing Crime Free Multi-Housing, however, condo associations have meetings too.  Why can't some of these buildings do it as well?

What I really can't understand is how strongly some people feel about the inspection part.  If the building is safe, sound, and meets fire, electrical and plumbing codes, what's wrong with that?  Northside has an issue with the building inspector having the discretion "to inspect a building as many times as he wants."   If the building meets code, who the F* cares, and most likely the inspector won't come back to your building any time soon.  It seems that only those building owners who plan on owning slum buildings that don't meet code would be affected the most.  

Those owners who have decent buildings will be inconvenienced with the training and hit with the fees, and I can understand their frustration with that aspect of the ordinance.

[tony la]

I'm not saying something should be done.  This ordinance was way over the top in the beginning.  Brian, the guy who said Lovero let us down was a person I have known since I was in little league.  Brian, he has owned buildings for over 50 years.. I have not been in his buildings in a long time but I know him.  I could go over there unannounced, anytime, and go through his properties and you will see that they are in prestine condition. He is on top of those buildings constantly. His tenants see him regularly, and he still has problems from time to time.  Brian, you are a landlord and you know it too.

We will probably get this ordinance in some way.  We could live with most of it.  In my opinion the original version was a lawsuit from the ACLU just waiting to happen.  Howard Handler has studied this ordinance in every town that has tried it.  He was instrumental in tweeking it. There is a definite problem with some landlords I totally agree.  But one swipe of a brush is not going to just remove it without ramifications.  We just want to make sure the positives of this ordinance outweigh the negatives.

[Northside7]

"The only problem is that again Bobby lacks the courage to make a difficult decision.  If I remember correctly, Phelan tried to repeal the ordinance but Bobby, being the ballless wonder that he is had to compromise and "tweak" the ordinance. "


Is that really the case, N7 -  Bobby has no scrotum?  Or could it be that living in that area (1800 block) he knows that something needs to be done?   (yet lacks any novel, original thought)
MAYBE ... his lack of stones won't allow him to go against what he preaches about with McCheese:  he couldn't POSSIBLY create another position when he really wants to fork over more cash to............others? 

I didn't say Bobby had no scrotum.  I said he was ballless.  They are probably in his mommy's purse for safe keeping.

[tony la]

It was just not Bobbie.  Howard Handler had much imput in this ordinance.  He did much of the research.  In the end people listened to one another.  That is what politics should be.  You could say many things about Bob.  Not having balls is not one of them.