Tensions with FLLA Rises

[BrianSullivan]

In the June 7th council meeting the Freehold Land Lords Association ( FLLA) addressed the council with multiple concerns. FLLA board members Jeff Friedman and Chris LoPresti attended with comments which clearly indicated a high level of frustration.

During the public comments, both gentlemen addressed the council. Friedman started off by expressing a high level of frustration at he lack of progress on the issues that the FLLA has been attempting to present to the council over the past nine months. Friedman stated that only one councilman had taken the time to meet with the FLLA, though borough administrators had. Friedman stated that he and other members of the FLLA had also attended every rental board meeting this past year in the high hopes of civil dialog and gaining recommendations from the rental board to be presented to the council for review. It was also mentioned that the issues surrounding the FLLA had been taken out of the hands of the rental board.

Friedman's tone could easily be described as civil and polite. Friedman expressed the FLLA desire for civil and open dialog with the town. The FLLA has intentionally taken an approach to avoid dragging the town through the mud, creating bad press, or winding up in a law suit. In the past, the FLLA has expressed every desire to work with the town.

Friedman and LoPresti both made clear that the issues for the FLLA are in reference to very high land lord fees and some unconstitutional issues that are in practice. LoPresti mentioned that the fees had been raised three hundred percent in one year, which was the catalyst for the FLLA formation. The FLLA claims that this fee is hurting good landlords and not penalizing bad ones.

The talk of a law suit was brought up. The FLLA claims to be trying to avoid one, but it appears that it is headed that way. Friedman also indicated that the FLLA has not sought that the high fees be repaid to the landlords, but that may change.

The borough did respond in this meeting. There was some serious disagreement about how well meetings between the two parties went as well as how responsive the borough has been. Dialog between the FLLA and the borough administrator and attorney could be described as tense.

Councilman Sims mentioned that no person has ever approached him to meet with the FLLA and that he would be happy to do so.

Councilwoman Shutzer mentioned that it may very well be a reality that the FLLA does not get the answers they want. She also made very clear that she is there to represent the residents of Freehold Borough.


Councilman Newman brought up the rental changes that had been made at this meeting. The FLLA complained that they were not made aware of the changes until seeing them on the borough web site. It was stated by the borough that the recent rental changes are not in response to the FLLA and that those issues are still ongoing.

The Mayor ended the night on this topic with a very brief statement. Showing no sympathy for landlords he stated very clear that landlords have almost ruined Freehold Borough. He also claimed that Friedman's prepared statement was "chock full of inaccuracies" which was a cause of discussion earlier in the meetings.

[BrianSullivan]

I tried like heck to avoid opinion or bias in the first post. It was a bit of a tough issue with some clear disagreements. There was an evident clash between a council who has been attempting to deal with quality of life issues from slum lords vs the predictable concerns that landlords would eventually have.

The biggest question that pops out at me was why did the FLLA issues get taken away from the rental board? I was made aware of this quite some while ago and I do not believe that is the right thing to do.

In the end, I get every impression that the FLLA will sue and we are heading tha way fast, unless something is done quick. That is just a hunch.

[BrianSullivan]

I was given permission to post this in its entirety. This is what was read by the landlords group to the rental board on 1/21/10. I was present at that meeting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, I would like to thank Chairwoman Haley, Council liaison Newman and the entire board for inviting us here tonight to discuss how in partnership this Board and the Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey can address the concerns of property owners, landlords, and residents for mutual benefit.
First I would like to introduce to the Board Andrew Keily, whom many of you know and have heard from at past meetings, Andy is downtown businessman, Chairman of the Board of the Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey and owner of Keily Properties which owns a number of units in the Borough and manages over sixty (60) units for property owners. Andy lived in the borough while growing up, in fact he lived in the building I presently live in on Broad Street, he and presently resides in the Township, Andy is also an active member of the Freehold Center Partnership.
I would also like to introduce Christopher Lopresti, who will be speaking on behalf of the Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey tonight. Chris is a Board Member and Co-Founder of the Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey, Chris is a property owner and landlord of six (6) units in the Borough and is in contract to purchase two (2) more units.
My family has worked and owned property in the Borough since the late 60’s. One of the hats I currently wear is as property manager for One Broad Street, LLC and Three Broad Street, LLC, I also currently serve on the Board of Directors for both the Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey and the Freehold Center Partnership and as I mention earlier I have a residence on Broad Street.
The Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey was formed as Chris will explain in more detail as a result of the most recently enacted rental regulations particularly the 300% increase in the registration fee. As a result the membership along with advice from experts in regulatory affairs have identified a number of key ways in which the current ordinance can be improved upon in a way that will better address the concerns that the ordinance was drafted to address, in a way that reduces some of the more onerous burdens caused by the ordinance in its current form.
The goal of the Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey in the short term is to work with this Board and the Borough officials to construct an ordnance that will promote compliance to the benefit of property owners, residents, and landlords. Our long term goal is to work with this Board and the Borough to be a positive force in the Borough in terms of addressing issues that impact property owners, residents, and landlords as they arise.
We can all agree that overcrowding, poor maintenance, and unkempt properties, are bad for the Borough and that all of us have an interest in ensuring that issues of this nature are address properly. Property owners who allow overcrowding, who fail to provide adequate maintenance, and allow their properties to be unkempt; hurt not only the residents, but also all other property owners and landlords who do not overcrowd, and who do spend the necessary funds to provide proper maintenance, and exterior upkeep. Properties with these issues reduce property values for all property owners; this particularly affects landlords by reducing the rental rates of all units and for all landlords in the Borough. Properties with these issues also put landlords who do spend the necessary maintenance funds at a financial disadvantage as property owners who do not spend the necessary maintenance costs have lower overhead expenses and can therefore rent at even lower rates undercutting responsible landlords further reducing rental rates. Overcrowding particularly hurts landlords because if there are 8 people in a 4 person apartment that means that there is an empty apartment that should be occupied and producing rental payments.
I can say that we have common cause with this Board and the Borough to eliminate these problems the best we can and we hope that through this process we can work together to protect the investments we all have in the Borough.
To that end I believe it would be helpful to suggest to this Board to do fact-finding to determine where and to whom the overcrowding, poor maintenance, and poor exterior upkeep violations are being given to by code enforcement. Are these violations occurring in multi-family homes, apartment complexes, condo units, or single family homes?
Property owners and landlord provide important and necessary services to Borough residents, to penalize this important group of property owners and businesspeople because of the actions of a few bad actors will not solve the problem it will only serve to reduce the ability of compliant property owners and landlords to improve services to their tenants.
It must be pointed out that these same issues can be found in non-rental residences and that whether a rental property residence or non rental residence overcrowding, poor maintenance and poor exterior upkeep hurt all residents and property owners and must be enforced equally whether rental or non rental.
Finally before I turn this over to Chris I would like to point out that some of the issues that Chris is going to touch upon are based on State, and Federal laws, as well as State and Federal Constitutional rights. These more legal technical issues are not within our expertise and our legal counsel has been in contact with the Borough Attorney to better address those more technically legal issues. I have no doubt that the Council liaison, Borough attorney and our council can give us guidance going forward on how those issues are being addressed and best resolved.
Again I want to thank you for the opportunity for us to address this board and I hope that through this process we can improve the quality of life for all in the borough and look forward to working with this Board to address issue of concern to all of us as they arise in the future. Thank you.

[BrianSullivan]

AS a brief recap, here are the basic issues the FLLA have:

1. Vicarious libility-ticketing landlord for tenant act. 2. Night time inspections without probable cause or a warrent.
3. The fee increase.
4. The public list of names and addresses of landlord on boro website like sex offenders

[BrianSullivan]

I am going to be clear on a few things. I always try to get the best info that I can for readers. I am NOT advocating on behalf of the points that the FLLA have. I do agree and disagree with various points.

What I am advocating for is open, honest and decent dialog. When the FLLA first formed, they were very tight lipped. At the time, that was a red flag for me. Over time, they have opened up and from what I have seen, have been very consistent in seeking productive and civil dialog with the rental board and borough hall.

I reported earlier about the council meeting. AS I mentioned, the Mayor said that land lords have almost ruined Freehold. While that was a harsh statement, it does reflect the need for constant vigilance in protecting quality of life and making sure that things do not go down hill. As it is, there has been much reported progress pertaining to the rental problems in town. The last thing anybody wants is to go back to a wild west mentality.

I am also reminded of what Councilwoman Shutzer said. The FLLA may not get the answers they want. That is very true and she is correct. However, after nine months, the frustration that the FLLA has due to a lack of answers is very understandable. That is more than enough time where we should see answers from borough hall and then the FLLA can go from there.

I have always said that the rental issues have got to take all parties into consideration. The concerns and the formation of the FLLA should not be a surprise. I have always taken the stance of a home owner, one who wants to protect neighborhoods from be degraded from outside interests. I know many people who will share those same valid concerns. But, all sides do have to be heard.

With that said, the FLLA does deserve to be heard, they deserve answers in a reasonable time and all of that dialog must be out in the open in a civil, honest and decent way. We ALL have an interest at stake here. We should all be witness to these issues and we should all have an input. Taking that into consideration, it makes me wonder why the FLLA issues were taken out of the hands of the rental board- where this belongs.

Now for the tough part. I always have my ear to the ground in this town. The following is word on the street sort of stuff where I have to be careful.

There appears to be a pattern developing. Some things are getting nasty behind the scenes. I understand that a very prominent person may have gone to members of the FCP and thrashed the landlord group, allegedly accusing them of being liars who are looking to hurt the town. From what I understand, the fire department may have dealt with similar things from that same prominent person when dealing with the dispatch issues. That could explain some of the fire we saw from the FD. What I am hearing really hits home because it is all very close to what I went through last year and never deserved.

All of this drives home the point I make, this town has a real problem with open and honest dialog. I point that finger in many, many directions. There are discussions that have to take place and I will sound like a broken record, in a civil, decent, open and honest way. I bothers me that so many are afraid of that. I may not agree with everything the FLLA wants, but I do give them credit for they way they have been conducting themselves. More people should follow that lead.

[BrianSullivan]

More info to view...

Attachments:

[lisa]

Brian I just have to respond to this. and the more people in power that see it the happier I will be., Brian you know me and therefore know the love of my life is gardening in my backyard. I moved into this house 15 years ago BECAUSE of the yard!! My property happens to be very deep but very narrow which as far as the depth is extremely hard to find in the boro. The fact that I'm so close to my next door neighbors never bothered me in the past since I enjoyed neighbors on both sides that both me and my husband got along extremely well with. I have always enjoyed all the neighbors on my block until very recently when both houses on either side of me were purchased as rental property's. Since than I've had nothing but consistent nightmares with both. On the one side, the owner does not maintain his property. Oh the front looks good but if you stroll into my backyard to take a look next door it looks like an overgrown forest or a natural, wild habitat with 3 junk cars in the midst of the mess.

This past spring I lost a few trees, two of which fell into that yard. Trying to be a good neighbor when it happened I went next door to tell the present tenant to please tell his landlord that we would make sure the trees were cleaned up as soon as possible. Which actually took both me and my husband about 2 weeks to accomplish, trying to get around the junk cars, overgrown weeds and the deer feces was not a fun task and did make the job a bit more difficult, but we got it done!! Now I have a very landscaped yard with most of my plants running the perimeter of the property. On that particular side I have mostly Lilac trees, English Ivy and Hostas. After the tree cleaning I than went to do the normal maintenance I do every year in cleaning out the weeds from in between my Lilacs and Ivy. I was horrified to find my Lilacs literally overrun with poison Ivy coming from the next door yard, with leaves that are over 4 inches across. Now being extremely allergic to poison Ivy there was no way I could pull it out myself and anything that kills poison Ivy also happens to kill Lilac and English Ivy, so it has to be done by hand. Again I went next door this time very Irate telling the tenant (who I do get along with) That if his landlord didn't come down and clear out the weeds I planned to take some round-up to his property.
The Landlord was there in about 20 minutes. In my eyes, did a cursory clean up of that area but actually never even touched the poison Ivy. I was conversing with him at first again trying to explain how allergic to poison Ivy I am, how my dogs bring it into me and how the wild honeysuckle that I'm constantly pulling out on my property, is growing from his property up my trees and killing them. He seemed to be more interested in were the property line was and in telling me that part of his property was actually mine! And he had no poison Ivy on his property. I guess he was to busy worrying about what's actually his as versus mine to notice the poison Ivy growing up the side of his garage which was about 5 feet away from where we were both standing and about three feet from my lilac tree. I finally got aggravated when I was accused of being nasty to him. In that case he doesn't know what nasty is!!! I was actually trying to be very nice knowing he doesn't know the difference between a weed and a tree! From the day he moved in... me being an idiot has been trying to show him the difference. At this point I know he honestly doesn't care either way.
Obviously with his attitude and even mine by now! This problem still has not been resolved.

Brian My garden and my property takes an awful lot of money and work to maintain. You know I'm very happy with the work. It's not work to me. It's my Solace. The one thing in my life that truly sooths my soul and my mind and makes me feel like I'm giving back to the environment I so love. I know most of the people on my block feel the same way with their well kept yards and pretty houses. Where are our rights? With neighbors that actually LIVE here? Neighbors that actually have to share space and look at each others property everyday? Neighbors that have pride in what they look like to the outside world. This block like so many in Freehold boro has always been beautiful to look at. Well not so much anymore. I never expected to purchase a house to have to deal with slumlord neighbors. But that's what I'm really starting to feel like.

Now on the other side of me.......... That house had actually been vacant for a few years in foreclosure when I was actually happy to find that someone had purchased it. I initially was not to excited when I found out it was another person planning to rent it out. Until I saw the work being done. He pretty much gutted the house and rebuilt it. Now I won't get into the fact that most of the work was done on Saturdays and Sundays. That's another issue! The property I do have to say looks good and finally looks like it belongs on this street. I was fine with everything he had done until about a week ago. When again on a weekend night I heard a large truck pull up next door to offload a backhoe. I watched as they got out and started to dig up the earth next to the telephone pole at the foot of my driveway. It took me awhile to figure out they were digging the ground up to install wiring from the pole to the house. Now normally I wouldn't care, but that particular pole has a large transformer on it and has for years been leaning slightly into the street. It also happens to be the first place the electric company comes too if theirs a problem on this block with the electric power! All I could think as I watched them dig a five foot hole into the ground on the opposite side to which it's leaning, was it going to fall?
Now that was bad enough, keeping in mind this pole is just about at the property line and I happen to have a HUGE maple tree within 10 feet of that pole. I watched as they kept digging up dirt along with the roots to my tree. More roots and more roots and more roots probably about twenty feet worth. Now who cares about the pole? I'm worried about my tree!
I'm wondering if they had a permit for this work from the town? I never saw an electric or telephone company truck. That one pole is the pole my house is attached to for all of it's power. I'm just wondering now how long both my tree and that pole will last? And if the town knew about this clandestine work.

I have no idea who this new landlord is all I do happen to know is that he owns a number of rentals in freehold boro and he is an LLC. I have no way of contacting him when I can't even find out his name.
Like I said I've lived in this house for 15 years, what are my rights? I already had problems with that tree with branches I need to trim that are growing between the electric wires. That's MY problem not the towns. The plan was to hire someone to have a number of the branches trimmed out. But how many times can you assault a tree from top to bottom before you actually kill it? It would have been nice if this landlord at least informed me prior to what he planned to do. But I guess considering the truck didn't get her till after 7PM he really didn't want anyone to know anyway.

As far as the basic issues the FLLA has:

1. Vicarious liability-ticketing landlord for tenant act. 2. Night time inspections without probable cause or a warrant.

If they can do work on their property at night then I would say that gives us the right to have inspections done. I wish there had been someone I could call when I saw the work being done but I knew all offices were closed.

3. The fee increase.
I can understand a resentment with an increase in fees but why not make it an incentive.? if they keep their properties maintained and live within the laws give them their money back at the end of the year. Maybe if their smart they'll take that money and reinvest it into the property!

4. The public list of names and addresses of landlords on boro website like sex offenders.

That I agree with wholeheartedly! The above explains why. The name of my new next door neighbor seems to be a HUGE secret!!!!!!!!!!!!! Again where are my rights?
They want to sue the town? How many more groups are going to hire big time lawyers to dictate to the people of freehold boro that actually pay taxes how were supposed to live???
Scuse me if I'm being ignorant but I thought it was the job of the Mayor and the Council to protect the residents of Freehold Boro? Not BIG BUSINESS!!! Well I'm a resident that has no plans on going anywhere. Granted landlords should have rights too but NOT if they infringe on the peace and sanctity of residents. I'm sorry but I have a hell of a lot more invested in this town than any landlord. This is MY HOME and MY TOWN!!!! Where is MY Protection against landlords who can do or not do whatever they like? I used to be a tenant years ago. I respected the property when I left, Paid my rent every month on time and couldn't wait to find my own home were I could get away from the temporary living quarters and constantly beholding to someone else. I'm really starting to get ticked at having to deal with this BS again! I've been very happy here. But without town officials that are willing to protect the permanent residents they have and our rights were is this town going? Maybe another Harlem, Camden or Newark? That would really look great for Monmouth county, This being the county seat!

[richardkelsey]

Jun 10, 2010 16:06:44 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

AS a brief recap, here are the basic issues the FLLA have:

1. Vicarious liability-ticketing landlord for tenant act. 2. Night time inspections without probable cause or a warrent.
3. The fee increase.
4. The public list of names and addresses of landlord on boro website like sex offenders

Interesting stuff:


To recap -- what the FLLA wants is regulations without teeth and licensing without cost. Why wouldn't they?

Landlords can "contract" for the vicarious liability issues with their respective tenants. So, while the issue sounds like it has a justice appeal, I find it unavailing.

Night time inspections present no uniform legal problem as long as the standards are upfront, and applied evenly.

I can't comment on the "fee increase," but most fee increases are passed onto renters. It is essentially a tax on the poor. However, in a highly competitive market with lower prices, pricing power may restrict rental increases. Hence the concern.

I do agree that any "fee" or "tax" should have some rational basis to cost for services rendered. In theory, if the regulations are doing there respective jobs in cleaning up the issues, some costs of services and enforcement should be going down.

Without number 4, enforcement would really have no purpose.

Here's the thing -- if you think the regulations are too onerous to make money in the Borough rental market, sell the home or property to someone else who does not think the restrictions are too onerous.

In town with a dangerously high rental ratio -- the best protection for all residents is tight restrictions and well run rentals. This increases the value of all homes, encourages a better and more reliable brand of renter, and makes the Borough better in the long-run.

I agree with my friend Sharon -- the job here is to serve the best interest of all Borough residents - not the short-term financial interest of irresponsible and transient out of town landlords. Long-term landlords should embrace standards that raise the value of homes and create a stronger, more robust market for quality rentals.

[jefffriedman]

I am so happy that my republican friends on this site have so passionately supported government regulation. I hope we no longer need to argue the need for government regulations relating to cap and trade, health care, financial reform and the thousand upon thousand of other issues which my republican friends say are best served by an unregulated market.
I believe government must set strong regulations for behavior that affects the liberty of another.
I believe the Boro must have very strict regulations relating to this issue but I also think that those regulations should be geared to fixing the problem.
As there were only 11 citations for overcrowding last year I think we can all agree that the current system is not working as we all know that there were more than 11 overcrowded properties last year both retal and owner occupied homes.
I would like to see regulations that punish the irresponsible property owners without punishing the responsible property owners. Right now only the irresponsible property owners benefit from the current system for all the reason I have stated in my public statements.
I agree with a lot of the concersns Lisa has mentioned above, I live, in the Boro, across the street from a building that is ALLWAYS overcorwded and looks like SH*T, which is why we need to have a partnership between responsible property owners/landlords and the Boro so we can focus the attention on irresponsible property owners and fix the problem.

[jefffriedman]

I think it is great people are discussing this. I would like to address what has been said in the hope of laying a framework we can all agree on. I cant address both Lisa and Rich in the same sitting so I will start with Lisa.

I think it is vile that any property owner would allow their property to be over grown with rusting cars as Lisa has described. That landlord/property owner in my opinion should have his license revoked and be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The same should hold true to owner occupied resideneces that look the same.

Now the property on the other side. If the property has been improved as you have indicated I think that is a good thing. That the work was done on the weekend may not be as convenient as if it were done during the week but if every run down property was fixed up, even on weekends that would in the long run be positive. Would you have the same complaint if it was an owner occupied home being worked on in the same way on the weekends? If so I can’t argue with you. I truly do not understand the backhoe thing so I can not comment but if you are concerned about the work you should report it to code.

As for contacting him that should not be your responsibility that is what we pay code to do.

Property owners should not be doing work like that at night.

People’s homes should be inspected during the day when it is safer for all. I have spoken to many, many people in town and everywhere who would not even open a door to a stranger after dark, but let a stranger in because they say they are a code official. No way. I have lived in many apartment complexes in my life. I always have gotten a notice from the landlord that inspections would take place, the date and a range of hours. I either had to be there for the inspection or I had to sign the notice and return it to the landlord. Of course there should be inspections but they should not be done when it is dark out. If there is probable cause, a reasonable articulated suspicions, or a warrant then code and the police should be able to go in anytime. But for the systematic inspection to be done with no direct notice at night, just a knock on the door and let me in and search your home seems improper to me. Would you let a stranger into your home at 8:45 at night in Jaunary? Would anyone?

I think your idea regarding the fee is reasonable. In fact we talked about it, just like the insurance companies do now. It is a great idea, the problem is the courts have said that that is improper.

As for the public list of names. First, Why should responsible property owners be on a list that resembles a sex offender list or be subject to complaints from people who just don’t like the tenants. If there is a real problem or issue that is what code should do, it is not a citizens job to enforce the law. Second, I will say I like what Red Bank does I think the Boro should be posting repeat offenders. We have asked the boro for a list of repeat offenders so we can contact them and give them a piece of our mind and explain to them how they are hurting all of us but no list seems to exist.

We do not want to sue the town. To sue the town would only make our property taxes go up and enrich the Boro’s lawyers and ours-Not our goal. We hired an attorney initially becasue we are not experts in rental regulations and responisble businesspeople get proper advice and council before asking for changes. Our goal is to set up a system that addresses the problems and fixes them so we all benefit. For the record neither me nor my family own any residential rental properly in the boro so any claim that my positions comes from one of self enrichment would be incorrect. The current system is not working irresponsible landlords pass on their cost to their tenants which encourages overcrowding. Landlords who eat the fees to keep rent reasonable so overcrowding is not necessary suffer along with all other property owners. If a tenant gets a ticket for his wrong doing he may think twice about it. If the landlord gets the ticket the tenant learns nothing, a good landlord eats the fees and fine the bad landlord passes it on to the tenant who then needs to bring in another body to pay the higher rent and round and round. A landlord under our proposal would be requried to send a notice to quit to the tenant and then an eviction notice it compliance is not forthcomming. A landlord who does not send these notices would then defacto be on notice and responsible for any continuning violation.

Tenants are residents also and deserve the same dignity, respect, and constitutional treatment as us all.

As for having more invested in this town than any landlord I would respectfully say, on behalf of responsble landords, that we have invested as much as anyone in money, sweet, and blood in the Boro. My father put up his life's savings at the time to buy his first office building in the Boro. and spent his life maintaining it. But I could not and would not discount your or anyones else investment here. Disregarding dollars and cents I feel that any responsible property owner has made equally preisous investments. We have all, residents and responsible property owners alike, made and or continued investing here becasue we care. My father did not "live" in the boro but he did spend more time here than "home" and that investment, done by many responsible property owners/landlords should not be discounted because he did not have his domicile here.

I believe that the Mayor and Council should represent all interests in the town to improve the town. Business brings in needed tax revenue and is necessary.

I agree completely and could not have said it better landlords rights should not infringe on the peace and sanctity of residents.

We need better protections and I believe our flowchart is that better way. Right now the building across the street from me is overcrowded. It has been that way for years. Until we set up a system that works it will remain that way no matter how many times I complain.

Lisa, I hope that the above addressed some of your very valid concerns, which I share. If you have any more please post them and I will try and address them.

[jefffriedman]

On to Rich.

The FLANJ want regulation with teeth that addresses irresponsible property owners and reasonable licensing fees without punishing responsible landlords for the acts of irresponsible landlords.

Yes they can. If they do the tenant has to pay more and will overcrowd. That proves my point. High fees and vicarious liability encourages the problem to be worse.

As for night time inspections, Would you let a stranger into your home after dark?
If that stranger came with a Police Officer would you let them both in to wander your home with out notice? For me this is principal. No one come in my home unless I am inviting you in/consent or if you have a warrant. I can think of a few founding fathers who would agree.

As for the fee increase if the fee is reasonable we have no problem with it. If it costs $300.00 to file the paperwork for the registration and inspect a property every 3 years than that’s what it cost and that would be reasonable. But if it only cost $150.00 or $100.00 or less that is what the fee should be. Enforcement costs by law can not be include in the registration/license/ inspection fee.

We agree that it should be rationally based on the costs of services rendered that all we want.

What does the public list have to do with enforcement? I don’t get that, code has the list and code does enforcement what purpose other than a scarlet letter does that serve. Now a list of repeat offenders like Red Bank go for it. As I said above we would like that list also.

The dangerously high rental ratio is do to the fact that there are few good high paying jobs in the Boro. We as a town need to focus on bringing in High tech, green tech, bio tech, and pharm jobs to our empty where houses and properties. If we did that more families would be able to take advantage of the proposal by George Schnurr, the live where you work program. It would also bring in higher income renters who would pay more for a nicer place thus economically encouraging some property owners to do better.

I too agree with Councilwoman Schuster. Her job is to serve the best interest of all boro residents and we agree with that and want that. Many tenants have complained to me about the inspections. A majority of our members are long term landlords who do embrace higher standards then are currently in place. We want a uniform lease written with the Boro so no one has an excuse. We want to set up tenant and landlord forums to teach both tenant and landlords to be better neighbors; and we want to bring scorn on those who hurt all of our investments. Responsible landlords however should not be treated like criminals and responsible landlords should not be treated as guilty and have to prove their innocence.

I hope that addresses the comments put forth by Rich.
If you have more please post. I will try and respond to all questions or concerns but please try and first read the above to see if your question or concern is adressed. Thank you

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 14, 2010 15:42:23 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

I am so happy that my republican friends on this site have so passionately supported government regulation. I hope we no longer need to argue the need for government regulations relating to cap and trade, health care, financial reform and the thousand upon thousand of other issues which my republican friends say are best served by an unregulated market.
I believe government must set strong regulations for behavior that affects the liberty of another.
I believe the Boro must have very strict regulations relating to this issue but I also think that those regulations should be geared to fixing the problem.
As there were only 11 citations for overcrowding last year I think we can all agree that the current system is not working as we all know that there were more than 11 overcrowded properties last year both retal and owner occupied homes.
I would like to see regulations that punish the irresponsible property owners without punishing the responsible property owners. Right now only the irresponsible property owners benefit from the current system for all the reason I have stated in my public statements.
I agree with a lot of the concersns Lisa has mentioned above, I live, in the Boro, across the street from a building that is ALLWAYS overcorwded and looks like SH*T, which is why we need to have a partnership between responsible property owners/landlords and the Boro so we can focus the attention on irresponsible property owners and fix the problem.

About them republican friends, just remember, the regulations and enforcement in this town has been set up purely by Dems. ;D


Getting away from the partisan nonsense and back on track, this thread has some great discussions today. Rich, Lisa, and Jeff, all of you provided readers with some great stuff.

Lisa, your story is so similar to what many, many people have dealt with in this town. It needs to be told as often as possible so tha we remember why we are always trying to change things for the better. That starts with open and hones discussion from everybody. Too often we do not see enough of that in this town.

Jeff, you have been good at that. From a PR stand point you are certainly facing a tough battle. Lisa's post is a good reminder of that. I have always said that it should be no surprise that landlords would have concerns. I have always said that all sides need to be heard so that the right things are done.

I still say these things belong back in the rental board.

[lisa]

Jun 14, 2010 17:18:52 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

I think it is great people are discussing this. I would like to address what has been said in the hope of laying a framework we can all agree on. I cant address both Lisa and Rich in the same sitting so I will start with Lisa.

I think it is vile that any property owner would allow their property to be over grown with rusting cars as Lisa has described. That landlord/property owner in my opinion should have his license revoked and be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The same should hold true to owner occupied resideneces that look the same.

Now the property on the other side. If the property has been improved as you have indicated I think that is a good thing. That the work was done on the weekend may not be as convenient as if it were done during the week but if every run down property was fixed up, even on weekends that would in the long run be positive. Would you have the same complaint if it was an owner occupied home being worked on in the same way on the weekends? If so I can’t argue with you. I truly do not understand the backhoe thing so I can not comment but if you are concerned about the work you should report it to code.

As for contacting him that should not be your responsibility that is what we pay code to do.

Property owners should not be doing work like that at night.

People’s homes should be inspected during the day when it is safer for all. I have spoken to many, many people in town and everywhere who would not even open a door to a stranger after dark, but let a stranger in because they say they are a code official. No way. I have lived in many apartment complexes in my life. I always have gotten a notice from the landlord that inspections would take place, the date and a range of hours. I either had to be there for the inspection or I had to sign the notice and return it to the landlord. Of course there should be inspections but they should not be done when it is dark out. If there is probable cause, a reasonable articulated suspicions, or a warrant then code and the police should be able to go in anytime. But for the systematic inspection to be done with no direct notice at night, just a knock on the door and let me in and search your home seems improper to me. Would you let a stranger into your home at 8:45 at night in Jaunary? Would anyone?

I think your idea regarding the fee is reasonable. In fact we talked about it, just like the insurance companies do now. It is a great idea, the problem is the courts have said that that is improper.

As for the public list of names. First, Why should responsible property owners be on a list that resembles a sex offender list or be subject to complaints from people who just don’t like the tenants. If there is a real problem or issue that is what code should do, it is not a citizens job to enforce the law. Second, I will say I like what Red Bank does I think the Boro should be posting repeat offenders. We have asked the boro for a list of repeat offenders so we can contact them and give them a piece of our mind and explain to them how they are hurting all of us but no list seems to exist.

We do not want to sue the town. To sue the town would only make our property taxes go up and enrich the Boro’s lawyers and ours-Not our goal. We hired an attorney initially becasue we are not experts in rental regulations and responisble businesspeople get proper advice and council before asking for changes. Our goal is to set up a system that addresses the problems and fixes them so we all benefit. For the record neither me nor my family own no residential rental properly in the boro so any claim that my positions comes from one of self enrichment would be incorrect. The current system is not working irresponsible landlords pass on their cost to their tenants which encourages overcrowding. Landlords who eat the fees to keep rent reasonable so overcrowding is not necessary suffer along with all other property owners. If a tenant gets a ticket for his wrong doing he may think twice about it. If the landlord gets the ticket the tenant learns nothing, a good landlord eats the fees and fine the bad landlord passes it on to the tenant who then needs to bring in another body to pay the higher rent and round and round.

Tenants are residents also and deserve the same dignity, respect, and constitutional treatment as us all.

As for having more invested in this town than any landlord I would respectfully say, on behalf of responsble landords, that we have invested as much as anyone in money, sweet, and blood in the Boro. My father put up his life's savings at the time to buy his first office building in the Boro. and spent his life maintaining it. But I could not and would not discount your or anyones else investment here. Disregarding dollars and cents I feel that any responsible property owner has made equally preisous investments. We have all, residents and responsible property owners alike, made and or continued investing here becasue we care. My father did not "live" in the boro but he did spend more time here than "home" and that investment, done by many responsible property owners/landlords should not be discounted because he did not have his domicile here.

I believe that the Mayor and Council should represent all interests in the town to improve the town. Business brings in needed tax revenue and is necessary.

I agree completely and could not have said it better landlords rights should not infringe on the peace and sanctity of residents.

We need better protections and I believe our flowchart is that better way. Right now the building across the street from me is overcrowded. It has been that way for years. Until we set up a system that works it will remain that way no matter how many times I complain.

Lisa, I hope that the above addressed some of your very valid concerns, which I share. If you have any more please post them and I will try and address them.

Jeff I agree with most of what you said, maybe not all but most. I do feel like I have more invested in this town knowing I'll probably grow old and hopefully not to feeble in this town and house that I love so well. A business owner does deserve respect but not to the extent that it infringes on me and my life. A business owner doesn't wake up to walk his dog at 5:00 in the morning, Nor sits on his front porch till 10, 11 even 12 o'clock at night. Business or not most of the owners don't live in Freehold boro and therefore I feel like as a homeowner I've invested more. Businesses come and go everywhere not just in the boro. It's one thing to invest money it's another when you plan to spend the rest of your life in a town. But actually that's even besides the point and I thank you for your reply.

It just so happens I did call code enforcement and was told they will be here tomorrow morning, maybe by then I'll have a few questions answered.

As far as letting someone in at night. Jeff I have met and at least if not by name then at least by face know our code enforcement officials. I guess that's again because I live here and care about this town.! That in itself I think says enough, but honestly if they came to my front door for whatever reason at 8:30 on a January night I would (if not let them in) at least have to find out why they were here. lol Knowing me I'd probably get into a long conversation with them about their job and what's going on in town. That again is the beauty of this small town. And explains again how much more I have invested in my home!

I do agree and don't like the fact that those fines do get passed on to the tenants. That's just wrong! Especially in today's economy. I know the cost of rentals only to well, and I just wish that there could be a legal way around allowing them to do that. Maybe some kind of escrow account that when after a year of no complaints, interest accrued they could access the money for the property? Maybe I'm dreaming but it would be nice!

Again Jeff thank-you for your reply it did address my concerns and like I said I may not agree with everything you said, But you also made some valid points.

[jefffriedman]

BRIAN SAID About them republican friends, just remember, the regulations and enforcement in this town has been set up purely by Dems.
Getting away from the partisan nonsense and back on track, this thread has some great discussions today. Rich, Lisa, and Jeff, all of you provided readers with some great stuff.
Lisa, your story is so similar to what many, many people have dealt with in this town. It needs to be told as often as possible so tha we remember why we are always trying to change things for the better. That starts with open and hones discussion from everybody. Too often we do not see enough of that in this town.
Jeff, you have been good at that. From a PR stand point you are certainly facing a tough battle. Lisa's post is a good reminder of that. I have always said that it should be no surprise that landlords would have concerns. I have always said that all sides need to be heard so that the right things are done.

I still say these things belong back in the rental board. [/color]



Considering that I think we all want the same thing I see no “battle”. What is at issue, I believe, is how best to address and solve the issues that have been discussed above. Does the current system work? I would argue no for the reasons I have stated above. If the current system worked I would not have an overcrowded mess across the street from me for years and Lisa’s next-door junkyard would have been addressed. The problem residents have, I believe as do I, is with irresponsible property owners/landlords irresponsible tenants and irresponsible owner occupied properties. If all parties acted responsible then there would be no problem, but there are always bad apples and that is why we have code. However to brand a whole group of people one way; To punish a whole group for the acts of some, to brand as criminals the innocent I believe does not solve the problem, it creates division not partnership and it allows the bad actors to hide in the shadow’s while people who care, on both side, about the town argue back and forth. If we did not care, and this goes for all parties I believe, we would not be discussing/arguing, we would not care enough to.

[lisa]

Jun 14, 2010 18:00:02 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

As for night time inspections, Would you let a stranger into your home after dark?
If that stranger came with a Police Officer would you let them both in to wander your home with out notice? For me this is principal. No one come in my home unless I am inviting you in/consent or if you have a warrant. I can think of a few founding fathers who would agree.

As for the fee increase if the fee is reasonable we have no problem with it. If it costs $300.00 to file the paperwork for the registration and inspect a property every 3 years than that’s what it cost and that would be reasonable. But if it only cost $150.00 or $100.00 or less that is what the fee should be. Enforcement costs by law can not be include in the registration/license/ inspection fee.


The dangerously high rental ratio is do to the fact that there are few good high paying jobs in the Boro. We as a town need to focus on bringing in High tech, green tech, bio tech, and pharm jobs to our empty where houses and properties. If we did that more families would be able to take advantage of the proposal by George Schnurr, the live where you work program. It would also bring in higher income renters who would pay more for a nicer place thus economically encouraging some property owners to do better.

Jeff I have to completely 100% disagree with that first statement. If I had a code enforcement official come to my front door with a police officer I would honestly HAVE to let them in!!!! Excuse me if you think I'm wrong but I think I have enough respect for our Police officers to know at that point there was a serious problem and if not so much for the code enforcement officer. Any policeman in my town that has proper credentials is enough for me to know those problems need to immediately be addressed!
Again maybe again this attitude just portrays what I have invested in Freehold Boro?

As for the fee? Jeff when I purchased this house there were many things I had to pay for. Inspections fees and everything else it entailed. $300.00 was nothing at that point! even $500.00 to $1000.00 I probably wouldn't have thought much of. If a homeowner needs to pay fees to the town for inspections or any other fees than why not landlords?

As for this Idea?
"The dangerously high rental ratio is due to the fact that there are few good high paying jobs in the Boro. We as a town need to focus on bringing in High tech, green tech, bio tech, and pharm jobs to our empty where houses and properties."

Oh jeese! I had a conversation with a friend just last night about this exact subject and the more I think about it the more I actually HATE IT!!!!!!!!!

Jeff I purchased my house in this town being fully aware of everything this town is! A small quiet town that has relaxing restaurants, little stores you can browse on a nice summer or spring day. A place you can relax in! A Place to LIVE in!
Freehold Boro is NOT a city!!
Your talking about trying to make it into something it isn't and should never be!!!
I have one question for you? Where do you expect all these employees to park their cars? In the places that freehold residents have to fight for now? How do you plan to accommodate all this new traffic? Has anyone thought that out yet? Or much less even considered the fact? Has anyone thought about the fact that doing this will strain our Police force even more than it already is? I think we have enough problems in this small town rather than bringing in more business when we can't even maintain and handle some of the problems we already have!!
You talk about Red Bank? The difference between Freehold and Red Bank, number 1 is size. They have parking!!!! They have places for high tech businesses. Jeff I lived in Red Bank! In fact I was looking to purchase a house there before I found this one. Freehold boro is the next best thing to Red Bank but it is NOT and will never be Red Bank!!!

Whoever came up with this idea has no idea what Freehold is. And putting it as nice as I possibly can this is the most misguided, unthought-out plan I've heard so far. We happen to live in a town that actually has a wonderful personality in it's own right! Why not work on and enhance what we already have instead of trying to change it into something it can never possibly be? You can't make a small town into a bustling city and keep it's residents. Or maybe that's what the idea is behind this plan?

I wish I could take advantage of the live where you work idea but on the other hand I don't know if I'd like that situation anyway. I think it's great for anyone that can. But ya know........ I don't really think it's that important either. What's important to me is we try to keep this town and it's present small town persona the way it is! That to me is more important for the place I want to live!!!
Their aren't many towns like Freehold boro left in this state. We have something here, despite our problems that is EXTREMELY hard to find anymore. Why can't our officials recognize that fact and fix the problems rather than try to make new ones?
I'm thinking of an old expression that fits this plan...........
That being "The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence until you get there"!! Seems to me someones Not thinking this idea out!

[jefffriedman]

Lisa, I would suggest that not everyone in town knows the code department members. I let them in my buildings all the time. I can’t let them in my tenant’s offices with out their permission. For some that permission has been granted upfront but other requires notice. I too would let police in if there was a reason of course but I am thinking from the point of view of some residents who may fear a lot. I know this one woman, an older woman, she told me that when code comes she calls the police station because she is afraid to let strangers in. I asked her if a police officer came with code would you open the door. She said no, not till she called the station, unless she knew why they were there. I know another woman around my age who told me unless she knew someone was comming she does not anwer the door after dark. That is the prospective I am viewing this issue from.

As for fees. I understand what you are saying but the State law says that the fee must be based on the actual cost of the registration/licensing / inspection process. I did not write it. I did not interpret it. I agree that there should be a fee but it should equal the costs of the registration/licensing / inspection process.

I would remind everyone that this town used to be full with at the time “High tech jobs”. The rug mill, the bike factory, all those factory on Barnard and the space that is between Hudson and Nestle. They would access the complex from Rt 33 in Freehold twp. Follow a road along the tracks into the back portion of the massive empty property. No cars ever have to be downtown in connection with a project like this. All it would do is replace some of the jobs that were lost between 1900 and 1966 for example. Yes I have considered all and have drafted pretty detailed memo; if anyone would do anything with them besides throwing them out we may be one day be able to fund the schools. I would also think that may people who got those new jobs would buy homes from the irresponsible landlords we all want out of town.

Regrdless of our points of view, which from your first respone to my post of your post we agree on much, I have in no way degraded your opnion or ideas. I have indeed thought my ideas out. I belive in the rules of baseball. If you hit 300% you make the hall of fame. That is 30% if 30% of my ideas in my lifetime become reality I will be pleased. To not swing at the pitch, not offer ideas of solutions, is missing oppunitities. If you dislike my idea that is fine to insult me is uncecessary.

[lisa]

Jeff I had absolutely no intention of Insulting you. If I did? I truly apologize. It was not meant to at all. If my passion about this town comes off that way. I don't mean it personally. I can understand you may be trying to come up with some ideas to make this town work. But please remember. In 1966 this world and town was a much different place. This is a very small town that has set borders and only so much space for people to actually live. I understand you would like to attract more of the type of homeowner that can afford to live in one of the houses rather than rent it out. But with for example the parking? I just don't see how it would work. We both know their is a parking problem been going on and getting worse for awhile and my point was until that problem is addressed and rectified no one is going to want to work in a place where they can't have their car available to them. In that case my feelings are we need to take example from Red Bank where they built the 3 story parking garage. They also charge a nominal fee for parking. I believe if we did also? It would at least partially aleve some of our problem.

[jefffriedman]

To bring this back to the issues of the discussion; The 4th amendment of the Constitutions says “The rights of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.”
My point was and is that, regardless what an individual would personally do when someone arrives at our front door, there are Constitutional Rights that allow one not to open the door if they do not want to unless there is cause.
If we agree that the Constitution should be followed then there is no disagreement. What we would personally do when someone arrives at our door is less of the issues than what the Constitution allows/requires. To me this is not a question about respect for Police; we can respect police and respect the Constitution at the same time they are not exclusive. The question is does a person have a right to to say no to entery if there is no cause or warrent. I would say the short answer to that question is yes.

[jefffriedman]

Jun 15, 2010 5:44:06 GMT -5 lisa said:

Jeff I had absolutely no intention of Insulting you. If I did? I truly apologize. It was not meant to at all. If my passion about this town comes off that way. I don't mean it personally. I can understand you may be trying to come up with some ideas to make this town work. But please remember. In 1966 this world and town was a much different place. This is a very small town that has set borders and only so much space for people to actually live. I understand you would like to attract more of the type of homeowner that can afford to live in one of the houses rather than rent it out. But with for example the parking? I just don't see how it would work. We both know their is a parking problem been going on and getting worse for awhile and my point was until that problem is addressed and rectified no one is going to want to work in a place where they can't have their car available to them. In that case my feelings are we need to take example from Red Bank where they built the 3 story parking garage. They also charge a nominal fee for parking. I believe if we did also? It would at least partially aleve some of our problem.

I agree with alot of this. Parking is the number one issue and a garage is necessary. I would suggest that if we brought in jobs to those empty factories and vacant lots of the people who moved here for the jobs would walk to work. This issue could be its own thread.

Now back to the issue of this thread.

The first question is - what is the goal?
I would suggest the goal is to promote compliance among all property owners and residents relating to property maintenance and health and safety requirements.

The second question is- Is the current system working?
I say no for all the reasons above and the fact that the place across from me has been overcrowded for years, and Lisa has a junkyard next to her and I can point to a number of properties both rental and owner occupied that have the same issues.

The third question is -Do we believe in the Constitution?
I would say yes.

The fourth question is- Do we believe that an individual is responsible for their own actions?
I would say yes.

The fifth question is- Should fees be based on the actual cost of the service provided?
State law says yes

If we agree on the answers to these questions then I think we are on the same page. Then the question is how do we best address the problems in a way that respects everyones rights in a neighborly way.

[Mike Rosseel]

Jun 15, 2010 6:01:18 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

Jun 15, 2010 5:44:06 GMT -5 lisa said:

Jeff I had absolutely no intention of Insulting you. If I did? I truly apologize. It was not meant to at all. If my passion about this town comes off that way. I don't mean it personally. I can understand you may be trying to come up with some ideas to make this town work. But please remember. In 1966 this world and town was a much different place. This is a very small town that has set borders and only so much space for people to actually live. I understand you would like to attract more of the type of homeowner that can afford to live in one of the houses rather than rent it out. But with for example the parking? I just don't see how it would work. We both know their is a parking problem been going on and getting worse for awhile and my point was until that problem is addressed and rectified no one is going to want to work in a place where they can't have their car available to them. In that case my feelings are we need to take example from Red Bank where they built the 3 story parking garage. They also charge a nominal fee for parking. I believe if we did also? It would at least partially aleve some of our problem.

I agree with alot of this. Parking is the number one issue and a garage is necessary. I would suggest that if we brought in jobs to those empty factories and vacant lots of the people who moved here for the jobs would walk to work. This issue could be its own thread.

Jeff, who would pay for this "necessary garage"? Would it be placed on the residents or should the burden of it be placed on those who will benefit such as building owners in town and business owners? It seems alot of people coming up with these suggestions are looking at this as what benefits them, the minority, the most, what about all the residents?

[jefffriedman]

Mike,
I would think the business owners building it would pay for it? In fact the same discussion is currently taking place over the Market yard redo. I have suggested that the businesses that abut the lot, along with the owners of the lot should pay. So not only do I agree with you on that point I have argued the same position.

But that is not the topic of this thread. We should discuss this on a different board. PS- A parking garage will not ever directly benefit my family's properties as we have our own lot with 40+ parking spaces.

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 14, 2010 20:12:11 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

BRIAN SAID About them republican friends, just remember, the regulations and enforcement in this town has been set up purely by Dems.
Getting away from the partisan nonsense and back on track, this thread has some great discussions today. Rich, Lisa, and Jeff, all of you provided readers with some great stuff.
Lisa, your story is so similar to what many, many people have dealt with in this town. It needs to be told as often as possible so tha we remember why we are always trying to change things for the better. That starts with open and hones discussion from everybody. Too often we do not see enough of that in this town.
Jeff, you have been good at that. From a PR stand point you are certainly facing a tough battle. Lisa's post is a good reminder of that. I have always said that it should be no surprise that landlords would have concerns. I have always said that all sides need to be heard so that the right things are done.

I still say these things belong back in the rental board.

[/color]



Considering that I think we all want the same thing I see no “battle”. What is at issue, I believe, is how best to address and solve the issues that have been discussed above. Does the current system work? I would argue no for the reasons I have stated above. If the current system worked I would not have an overcrowded mess across the street from me for years and Lisa’s next-door junkyard would have been addressed. The problem residents have, I believe as do I, is with irresponsible property owners/landlords irresponsible tenants and irresponsible owner occupied properties. If all parties acted responsible then there would be no problem, but there are always bad apples and that is why we have code. However to brand a whole group of people one way; To punish a whole group for the acts of some, to brand as criminals the innocent I believe does not solve the problem, it creates division not partnership and it allows the bad actors to hide in the shadow’s while people who care, on both side, about the town argue back and forth. If we did not care, and this goes for all parties I believe, we would not be discussing/arguing, we would not care enough to. [/quote]

Jeff, the battle I refer to is the pulic relations battle for the good landlords. Lets face it, home owners are not warm to the rentals in this town and slum lords have done a lot of damage. Is that fair to the good landlords? Probably not, but that is the value and battle your group has. I know you and I have certainly seen you busting your tail outside yoru properties which are very well kept up. People like you, Andrew and Chris do not belong in the same catagory as a slumlord who allows an illegal restaurant on his property.

I do have to disagree with one thing I saw in the papers and is posted here. One of your group mentioned that landlords are good for the town. How so? If the single family homes were not converted into rentals, I think most people would agree that we would be better off. Nobody would miss the landlords, even the good ones. As it is, this town has tons and tons of apartments and affordable housing. We did not need more and we did not need to see formerly beautiful homes run down. I just finished walking Broadway and some of those rental homes are a true shame.

But, the above is really irrelavant, isn't it? The fact is we do have the land lord community here. Whether people like it or not, they do need to be heard and addressed. I think nine months is long enough and the town officials should have been giving you answers. After all, this is the town they created and they do have to deal with things in a fair and decent way.

The ongoing conversation between you and Lisa pertaining to the ongoing problems you have both been witness to on surrounding properties is just where this conversation lies. Why are those things still going on?

[BrianSullivan]

Lisa wrote:

Jeff I purchased my house in this town being fully aware of everything this town is! A small quiet town that has relaxing restaurants, little stores you can browse on a nice summer or spring day. A place you can relax in! A Place to LIVE in!
Freehold Boro is NOT a city!!

I am going way off topic here, but that statement popped out. I agree one hundred percent. I too want to maintain the small town charm and not emulate an urban feel in this town. AS it is, we have too many urban traits that are not good- overcrowded schools, overcrowded homes, beggars on corners, higher than acceptable crime, and much more. Who really wants that? I do not like cities and the more city like this town becomes, the more I will want out.

Lisa, I will post something separate under Main Street that you will like.

[jefffriedman]

Brian,
That is a good question. I would say that good landlords play an important role in any community in providing needed services to the needs of renters. If a property is maintained that should be the priority. I too would agree that converting single family homes to rentals may be less than ideal but a landlord that maintains the property is better that a vacant property. Even if no single family homes had ever been converted there are two and three family properties that have been rental since they were built in the 50's and earlier. So even under that scenario there will still be landlords.

[jefffriedman]

Jun 15, 2010 8:25:04 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

Lisa wrote:

Jeff I purchased my house in this town being fully aware of everything this town is! A small quiet town that has relaxing restaurants, little stores you can browse on a nice summer or spring day. A place you can relax in! A Place to LIVE in!
Freehold Boro is NOT a city!!

I am going way off topic here, but that statement popped out. I agree one hundred percent. I too want to maintain the small town charm and not emulate an urban feel in this town. AS it is, we have too many urban traits that are not good- overcrowded schools, overcrowded homes, beggars on corners, higher than acceptable crime, and much more. Who really wants that? I do not like cities and the more city like this town becomes, the more I will want out.

Lisa, I will post something separate under Main Street that you will like.

Yes off topic indeed, I have never disputed Lisa above statement and agree. I agree with Brian's statement above as well but what I really like about the boro in this regard is how we have that small town charm and the layout that allowes people to walk around like a "city" very small c, where you don't need a car every day as in the township or Howell, farmingdale, and I could go on and on. The balance between a vibrant downtown, the beautiful homes, the connectedness of the community is what makes Freehold different than all of the surrounding towns and a great place to live. Now so Lisa can contine her shoping stroll we need more shops.

[richardkelsey]

Jun 14, 2010 18:00:02 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

On to Rich.

The FLANJ want regulation with teeth that addresses irresponsible property owners and reasonable licensing fees without punishing responsible landlords for the acts of irresponsible landlords.

Yes they can. If they do the tenant has to pay more and will overcrowd. That proves my point. High fees and vicarious liability encourages the problem to be worse.

As for night time inspections, Would you let a stranger into your home after dark?
If that stranger came with a Police Officer would you let them both in to wander your home with out notice? For me this is principal. No one come in my home unless I am inviting you in/consent or if you have a warrant. I can think of a few founding fathers who would agree.

As for the fee increase if the fee is reasonable we have no problem with it. If it costs $300.00 to file the paperwork for the registration and inspect a property every 3 years than that’s what it cost and that would be reasonable. But if it only cost $150.00 or $100.00 or less that is what the fee should be. Enforcement costs by law can not be include in the registration/license/ inspection fee.

We agree that it should be rationally based on the costs of services rendered that all we want.

What does the public list have to do with enforcement? I don’t get that, code has the list and code does enforcement what purpose other than a scarlet letter does that serve. Now a list of repeat offenders like Red Bank go for it. As I said above we would like that list also.

The dangerously high rental ratio is do to the fact that there are few good high paying jobs in the Boro. We as a town need to focus on bringing in High tech, green tech, bio tech, and pharm jobs to our empty where houses and properties. If we did that more families would be able to take advantage of the proposal by George Schnurr, the live where you work program. It would also bring in higher income renters who would pay more for a nicer place thus economically encouraging some property owners to do better.

I too agree with Councilwoman Schuster. Her job is to serve the best interest of all boro residents and we agree with that and want that. Many tenants have complained to me about the inspections. A majority of our members are long term landlords who do embrace higher standards then are currently in place. We want a uniform lease written with the Boro so no one has an excuse. We want to set up tenant and landlord forums to teach both tenant and landlords to be better neighbors; and we want to bring scorn on those who hurt all of our investments. Responsible landlords however should not be treated like criminals and responsible landlords should not be treated as guilty and have to prove their innocence.

I hope that addresses the comments put forth by Rich.
If you have more please post. I will try and respond to all questions or concerns but please try and first read the above to see if your question or concern is adressed. Thank you

Jeff -- thanks.

I do agree that "no notice" night-time inspections seem facially wrong and could be Constitutionally suspect. In a state like NJ where renters have more rights than owners, the problems are even more difficult.

For example, it may be possible to put in your lease with tenants that they must allow no notice inspections at night to authorized town officials. (Most would not want to rent under those conditions.) In VA, such a provision would be permitted. I don't know that it would be permitted in NJ.

I am not sure that no notice, night time inspections are necessary. I'd have to better understand this issue to know why such inspections are needed or performed. My only comment is, I think they can be done contractually.

As for the public list/scarlet letter issue. I actually think the power of the scarlet letter is quite strong. I think businesses and individuals respond to incentives and disincentives. Having one's name attached to violations can only be a net deterrence. Thus, I have no problem with that component.

We seem to generally agree on the fee issue.

We seem to disagree on the net effect of the strict liability provisions and passing those costs on to tenants. I have to part company with you on your reasoning. If a tenant continues to violate and overcrowd, the landlord would be hit with more penalties and those should then be passed contractually to the tenant. In other words, where's the incentive for the tenant to overcrowd? That only happens in the absence of strong enforcement. I hear you though -- rising costs tend to encourage over-crowding as a general notion -- assuming no strong enforcement by landlords and regulatory bodies.

My sympathy lies with the Landlords in this respect. NJ is a very landlord unfriendly state. In fact -- it's an embarrassment. My brother was stuck with deadbeat tenants he literally could not get out of his house for 2 + years. They worked the local and federal systems to avoid rent and liability. Thus, the inability of Landlords to use strong contractual provisions and protections against tenants makes it hard for them to self police or to better regulate to whom they rent, when, how, and under what terms. Thus, regulatory regimes that hold them strictly liable could be complicated by a state law regime that may make passing that liability on to tenants quite cumbersome.

Having said all that -- it is in the economic interest of Freehold to find the right regime to foil bad landlords, encourage good landlords, and where possible, move rental stock to the ranks of home-ownership.

I think this type of discussion is all very healthy -- and your perspective Jeff is quite helpful.

[jefffriedman]

Thank you Rich.

I agree with everything you said except the net effect of the strict liability provisions as you later indicate a bad tenant is hard to get out. That issues would be less of an issue if we had a system that worked. ie. punish irresponsible property owners and not punish responsible property owners.

I will also say as a point of clarification. I have been told that the boro does post somewhere the names of the streets they will be inspecting in a given week or month. I don't know where, I presume the paper, but I conceder that type of notice sub standard for this issue. Few read the notice section of papers.

I would point out that I agree that landlords names publicly attached to violations is good. I support that. I object to all landlords name and addresses being on the website that do not have violations.

Rich's point regarding the tangle of Federal, State, and local regulations creating a very difficult mess for even the best landlord to wade through is or critical importance for all to realize. Only by working together can these issues be solved for the benifet of all. Those tangled regulations is what lead my family to sell their residential rental properties in the early to mid 1990's. Getting a bad tenant out is very hard. Getting a bad tenant out that does not care about fines or neighbors is a disaster on every level. But even if all tenants were responsible we still need to address irresponsible property owners without punishing responsible property owners.

[jefffriedman]

One point about the nighttime inspections that has been discussed elsewhere but not here is the safety of the code enforcement employees.
I have discussed the routine systematic inspections from the prospective of a scared tenant. The prospective of the safety for code enforcement employees is of equal importance.
I certainly would not want to knock on anyone’s door at night requesting entry. I if I was tasked with that job I would be, quite frankly, nervous and scared. Forget code infractions for a moment, if a code employee at night during a routine systematic inspection knocked on the door of a residence where criminal activity is currently occurring, the risk to code employees could be considerable.
Is that risk worth the 11 overcrowding violations last year?
I personally do not think so.
Let me be clear inspections are necessary; having them done during the day is safer. Entry at night with probable cause and or warrant to enforce and or investigate is in my opinion also ok. I am just addressing the routine systematic inspections to be clear.

[lisa]

Jeff In that case maybe this town should seriously consider hiring retired police officers for part time code enforcement. I think even giving them a uniform so theirs no misunderstanding as to who they are, might be a good idea.

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 15, 2010 15:18:28 GMT -5 lisa said:

Jeff In that case maybe this town should seriously consider hiring retired police officers for part time code enforcement. I think even giving them a uniform so theirs no misunderstanding as to who they are, might be a good idea.

Jeff brings up a very good point about code officer safety. Lisa, your idea is good, but, I think the police are massively restrained from participation in code matters due to the settlement with outside interests.