ATTENTION BORO HOMEOWNERS!

[dfx]

FREEHOLD BORO HOMEOWNERS: Come to tonight's town council meeting (7pm) to support the town's position with the Landlord Association...

[jefffriedman]

Which is?

11 overcrowding violations issued, $18,850 in fines collected for residential rental properties. 309 inspections which equals 5.49 completed inspections a week and processing of a registration/license paper for each unit for $235,000 per year.

Can we residents and property owners work together to build a better system, improve the problem, or is the same old status quo the way. I think we should work towards progress and improving not the same old status quo.

*****************

The Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey has sought a dialogue and partnership with the Boro to address the concerns we all share as responsible residents and property owners since October 2009.

We continue to seek partnership and dialogue to work towards sensible solutions that address the problems and concerns we all share without violating State and Federal law or Constitutional liberties and rights. The Freehold landlord Association of New Jersey had hoped that the Governing Body would have met with our leadership prior to making proposed changes.

The Freehold Landlord Associations of New Jersey all hopes that the Governing Body would first still conceder and discuss the recommendations of the Freehold Borough Rental Advisory Board as well as the other recommendations, concerns and proposals put forth by the Freehold Landlord Association before voting on the current proposed ordinance which continues a unlawful system.

The Freehold Landlord Association hopes that the Governing Body will vote for dialogue, partnership, and progress on an united front and vote NO to conflict by voting NO on the proposed ordinance.

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 28, 2010 13:50:40 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

Which is?

Jeff beat me to the punch line by asking the right question. What is the towns position? Are we to follow it blindly? What are the rental board recommendations?

No matter what, I agree that people should be there to hear what happens. This is an important matter for our town, not only the results, but in how it is handled.

Good heads up, Dan,

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 28, 2010 13:56:59 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

Jun 28, 2010 13:50:40 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

Which is?

Jeff beat me to the punch line by asking the right question. What is the towns position? Are we to follow it blindly? What are the rental board recommendations?

No matter what, I agree that people should be there to hear what happens. This is an important matter for our town, not only the results, but in how it is handled.

Good heads up, Dan,

To clarify- my questions pertain to the many issues surrounding the FLLA and what can be expected to come of them.

The governing body did introduce an ordinance dealing with some rental issues. The second reading is tonight. This ordinance does not deal with all of the issues

[jefffriedman]

Under the Ordinance as it is written currently.
The Ordinance says that each “landlord” will get a license, not a license for each building.

That means a Landlord really was only required, as it was written, to pay one license fee.
Not a fee for each building.

None of the landlords realized that, neither the Governing Body nor their attorney realize that either.

It was our legislative expert that pointed that out to everyone.

Now we all know how the ordinance was meant to be written per building not per landlord, but it was not, and that is a fact.

Knowing that,
the governing body has proposed the following changes to be voted on tonight:

1. Fix that most important line to require a license for each building instead of per landlord to keep more money only.

2. Change the inspection to once every three years not because we want that but because it takes a year to get through 1/3 of the list. So that means to get through the whole list it will take 3 years.

3. Take the children’s names off the registration form. They put this in initially to cross reference with the schools. They are not dong it so having the children’s names was a waste to them.

4. Remove the penalty for landlords with violations. That penalty, even if we like it, violates the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution and had to go.

So be clear their current changes are not based on any “position with the landlord association” .

[BrianSullivan]

Before I begin, I want to commend Dan for getting the word out yesterday about this meeting. It was a good and important meeting for people to attend.

Also, I know many site readers and participants were there. I took tons of notes and I am sure I will miss some points. I more than welcome anybody who wants to report on what happened or correct anything I may miss. The more people who report what happened, the more "complete" this thread will be.

Like so many council meetings we have seen this year, last night was a hot one. The room was pretty full with people in attendance who represented the many interests we can expect to see surrounding the rental issues. The FLLA had many members, there were tenants speaking their minds, and of course, there were many concerned home owners.

In total, the meeting lasted three hours. At least one hour was dedicated to public comments. Comments continued in abundance when the actual ordinance was read for its second reading. The mayor was absent last night, Council President Jaye Sims lead the meeting.

I will start with the public comments portion of the meeting. Not all of it was dedicated to the rental issues.

Dorothy asked about the borough garage sale. Councilman Mike said it is planned for the fall.

Jim Ballew had a lot to say about parking problems and the lack of enforcement in the Foreman park area. He said that he had called the police department and had received a pretty bad answer. Part of the complaint is that tha there is not enough good parking for retail businesses. He mentioned that employees of local businesses are using two hour parking all day long causing a shortage in customer parking.

The police liaison of the night, Cpt. Roberts, apologized for any bad answers Ballew may have received. He said that he would look into this and help out. Roberts also mentioned that the police have been stepping up parking enforcement since February.

Ballew also brought up signage on businesses. He mentioned how much appearance counts and that some businesses were in violation. Ballew mentioned that he called borough hall and was told the town does not have time to deal with this.

Resident Barbara Oliver mentioned problems with a rental property next door to her. She mentioned that the yard is filthy and that people are coming out of the basement and urinating in the yard. Barbara was concerned that it will smell awful with the heat.


Ted Miller asked the council if they would comment on if they supported the 2.5 percent tax cap that the state is imposing. The only council person to answer was Schnurr who said yes he supports it.

The rest of the public comments surrounded the rental issues. I will merge those comments in with the rental ordinance comments.


The actual ordinance was clarified by councilman Newman for the audience. The tier of fees was changes and language cleaned up. The registration fee is per building, not per landlord. Also, the fee is now a flat fee of 300 dollars. The 600 dollar penalty was removed. There was a change in the inspections which will be done every three years. John also mentioned better announcements of the routine inspections. Complaint driven inspections will continue as they are, unannounced. The names of children are also to be removed from the applications.

In a 5-1 vote, the ordinance passed. The lone no vote was Newman.

Newman stated that his vote was largely symbolic. He understands that we cannot go back and that the ordinance needed to be fixed. He also made clear that this is a work in progress and that there appears to be a code enforcement problem. Newman mentioned the need for accountable inspections and is against intrusive inspections.

Shutzer mentioned that she was taking notes and asked tha people stay to the end to receive her answers.

Shnurr mentioned that 300 dollars does cover costs and that will be demonstrated.

Kane said they were right six years ago and are now.

Mike D. does want to meet with the landlords and applauded those who were present.

Kerry Higgins, borough attorney, also chimed in saying that dialog must continue and that some changes were in response to the FLLA.


( I am off to get more coffee, part two of this will be posted shortly)

[BrianSullivan]

Part two


With so much dialog, it will be tough to capture all quotes. AS mentioned, several sides were present.

Long time resident Bob Taylor mentioned that things are the worst they have been in a long time, much due to absentee landlords. He said he hears it from visitors who ask what happened to the town?

Barbara Oliver, Dorothy Wright, Jim Ballew, Dan Xavier Ted Miller and Reggie Sims all showed varying concerns about the quality of life that has been affected by absentee landlords.

Sims made a point and asked the landlords where they were several years ago when residents were in that very room complaining about the rentals. Sims also mentioned that the council did not do many of the things they have out of choice, but in direct response to the bad things that are happening in town.

The FLLA had many of its own members in the meeting. They made a public plea to work with the town and that they are not here to work against the town. The asked that all parties take into consideration the difference between good landlords and slumlords. They expressed desire to get rid of and penalize the bad landlords. The FLLA is trying to establish that they are a positive presence in town and are good for the town.

A common theme from the FLLA was frustration with borough hall and slow progress in working together. The FLLA was complimentary to the rental board which has heard them out and is working on recommendations.

The lawyer for the FLLA spoke up and said the town needs to come to grips and address the initial complaints. He said the ordinance does not do that enough and asked that the council votes no.

Council comments were certainly passionate and heavy. All of the council reminded us that they have been dealing with these things for years and have always acted out of concern for borough residents first and foremost.

Shutzer lead the comments with a very heated commentary. She even held up a giant sign that stated " I am a resident of Freehold Borough" to drive home her point of who she is looking our for. She asked the landlords why they did not police their own in the past? She mentioned that the council has indeed talked about these issues which she has been a part of due to the fact that she is the longest serving council person.

Kevin Kane echoed Shutzers sentiment and mentioned that the council was right in acting years ago when residents came forward, and they are right now.

All of the council realized that this is all a work in progress and also showed desire to continue dialog with the FLLA.

Our usually reserved and soft spoken Council president Jaye Sims went last and read from a prepared statement. Jaye mentioned that the rental issues have been multifaceted based on quality of life initiatives. Holding landlords accountable is key and that the lower amount of violations is an indicator that past practices have helped. Jaye made very clear that tax payers should not have to foot the bill.

Jaye related personal experiences backing up the need for quality of life protection. In a rare display of raising his voice, he addressed the people who would cause problems and said enough is enough!

[lisas84]

Last night’s meeting filled with day laborers was reminiscent of LLA and Casa Freehold-protest meetings. How come the only time this group of folks shows up en masse at a council meeting is because they are there to protest? It seems the FFLA, by doing that, is no different than the LLA and Casa Freehold; outside interests using the immigrant Hispanic population as puppets to pressure the council to do what they want.

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 29, 2010 10:31:43 GMT -5 lisas84 said:

Last night’s meeting filled with day laborers was reminiscent of LLA and Casa Freehold-protest meetings. How come the only time this group of folks shows up en masse at a council meeting is because they are there to protest? It seems the FFLA, by doing that, is no different than the LLA and Casa Freehold; outside interests using the immigrant Hispanic population as puppets to pressure the council to do what they want.

IMO, I do not completely agree with that assessment. The FLLA is taking a VERY different approach than the groups you mention. Most tenants in this town are Latino so it should be no surprise that Latinos show up. It was good to hear from the because people should be respected and constitutional rights should be protected.

That and my opinions aside, your post brings up a very important aspect that I did not post on- tenant concerns. This is a piece of the puzzle that has to be taken into consideration too and I was glad to see some tenants step up. All sides have to be considered and I have been saying that for years.

The big complaint for tenants last night was the night time inspections. The complaints centered around the fact that they are intrusive and at really bad times. remember, this is about the standard inspections, not complaint driven ones. There was a distinction made about each.

There was also complaints about stereotyping last night. Tenants and landlords both stressed that not all of them are bad or causing problems. There was also complaints about neighbors complaining to code enforcement for unjust reasons based on anti Latino bigotry.

On another note, Colleen did a nice write up on her site. There are a couple of good pictures there too. Check it out...

freehold.injersey.com/2010/06/29/shouting-speeches-surround-landlord-vote/

[lisas84]

Sorry, I stand by my statement. To me, it was as plain as day. Day laborers were once again rounded up, trotted out in a council meeting for the sole purpose of protesting. I mean, really. Again, same tactic employed by the LLA/Casa Freehold.

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 29, 2010 14:22:38 GMT -5 lisas84 said:

Sorry, I stand by my statement. To me, it was as plain as day. Day laborers were once again rounded up, trotted out in a council meeting for the sole purpose of protesting. I mean, really. Again, same tactic employed by the LLA/Casa Freehold.

That is fair enough, Lisa. You know me, I like to see the different perspectives. Yours is certainly valid.

On the bright side, at least they were not waving foreign flags with Telemundo in tow. ;D