|
|
Post by LS on Jun 20, 2007 14:37:28 GMT -5
On the subject of the restaurant and other zoning violations, the landlord must pay seven times the rent to the tenant for relocation. (the town does not pay). I believe that the town should look into this statute further and have this be part of the practice and procedure. This was suggestion number 9 by the Rental Advisory Board. newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/0214/Front_page/040.html(Great searchable website with NJ law: lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/links/new_jersey/index.shtml)"HELD: N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1h requires a landlord to provide tenants who are evicted as a result of a zoning-ordinance violation for an illegal occupancy with a fixed amount of relocation-assistance benefits based on six times the monthly rent. That sum must be paid five days prior to eviction. In addition, a landlord cannot reduce the relocation-assistance obligation by the amount of past-due rent or other damages owed by the tenant."lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/supreme/a-1-03.opn.html |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 20, 2007 14:46:25 GMT -5
Thank you. Ahhh...in this case you are placing the responsibility on the noncompliant business owner! There is hope for you after all, LS. ;D
I know we've (Council) asked this question many times and have gotten the same answer. We have to lay out the big bucks (in many cases) and have to try and collect from the landlord, for as long as it may take.
In reward for your excellent research efforts, I will investigate this one further using the laws you have cited here. Expect me to report back on this soon. Thanks.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jun 20, 2007 15:51:56 GMT -5
Well, thank you.
Lay out money? That is not what this seems to say. Anyway, assuming you did lay out money, here are 2 things to consider:
(1) it is a punishment to the landlord (SIX TIMES THE RENT!!!)
(2) the boro has the power to place a lien on the property, and the power to foreclose on the property for failing to pay (or so I believe).
(3) you say, whoa! paying money for a lien and foreclosures, that is a lot of money. The boro can get compensation from the actual fines being levied on the property owner and tenant (after all, overcrowding is a fine, and whatever else is the reason for the move).
(4) long term payment: So assuming that what I say is true, it is a short term "loan" to the landlord and the end result is the desired effect that the boro wants - sticking it to slumlords and a better town.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 21, 2007 11:28:12 GMT -5
I did some research on this last night. Not exactly. This has to be read in conjunction with many other sections of the statutes. But, the gist is correct.  What this is talking about are instances where Landlord is evicting the tenant - they can't be forced out until the landlord pays the relo costs. But relo costs are not due where it is the tenant that caused the illegal condition.I will ask Joe to put this on for a workshop - if there is a way to be able to accomplish what we can, I want to hear more about it. This was my contention (landlord pays) all along and I have asked about it from several different angles. If there is a way where the landlord pays and we don't have to, I'm in favor of it. My concern is that we don't need to have our folks actually find new housing for the evicted tenants. That could take lots of manpower at all hours. I'll report back what I hear. Marc Marc |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 21, 2007 11:33:42 GMT -5
We can't possibly budget that kind of money and ask the taxpayers to set up a largge fund for relocating, only god knows, how many people each year. This is a significant financial issue.
One house can have 15 people living there that need to be relocated. During the year, there could be a dozen or more situations with that amount of folks needing help in each location. And, our staff might have to find the housing at all hours, 24x7, an additional major cost.
Let's see what comes out of Council discussion.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Jun 21, 2007 21:48:52 GMT -5
We can't possibly budget that kind of money and ask the taxpayers to set up a largge fund for relocating, only god knows, how many people each year. This is a significant financial issue. One house can have 15 people living there that need to be relocated. During the year, there could be a dozen or more situations with that amount of folks needing help in each location. And, our staff might have to find the housing at all hours, 24x7, an additional major cost. Let's see what comes out of Council discussion. Marc True Marc, this is an unfair burden on taxpayers. What is fair is to impose a $5000 bond per apartment, on the landlord which goes into a "Relocation Fund". This is just a cost of doing business in the Boro! |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 22, 2007 9:24:43 GMT -5
As you know, this was recommended by the Rental Advisory Committee. It can be done with summer rentals ("animal houses"), but is not allowed under law with the kind of year round rentals we have here. I agree - it sucks! Maybe we need to address this with Trenton.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Jun 22, 2007 10:30:05 GMT -5
but is not allowed under law with the kind of year round rentals we have here. I agree - it sucks! Maybe we need to address this with Trenton.Marc Year round? you are refereeing to property leased with an actual written, legal, notarized, signed on the dotted line by a legitimate Tennant lease. Many if not most of the rental property in FB is month to month, cash and a hand shake. There are also leases under a pseudo tenant that disappears once the monthly cash flow is established with the landlord. When a CO is issued doesn't the property owner need to declare that the properly is or is not rental? So, is this is so, there must be a $5,000.00 bond posted to have the CO issued. Just my POV. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 22, 2007 11:03:39 GMT -5
r
Year round as in "available year round," not necessarily "lived in- year round - by the same person(s)." Summer rental as in "seasonal rental."
I know it's frustrating and our inclination is to try and apply some common sense while playing around with semantics. But, the courts are looking for their own kind of "ducks," not ours. I do believe that this is something worth fighting for in Trenton, because it makes sense.
You see, the current law is based on a "seasonal property" being considered as a second home for somebody and it doesn't care if that home is really being used as a rental property or not. As a second home, the courts do not see posting a bond as any kind of hardship for who they assume to also be the owner of a primary residence, elsewere.
However, if it's not a "seasonal rental," (even if it is a rental property) the courts still do consider it a primary residence and will not allow for the bonds. Kerry explained all this to our disappointment.
Too much assuming and not enough thought being given, here.
Can we all write letters to our representatives and I will talk to them as a Councilman, because this isn't fair.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jun 22, 2007 12:59:24 GMT -5
FYI, the case from Belmar: lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/appellate/a2941-99.opn.htmlI am a bit confused by Marc's response. I don't understand then, how we were able to pass anything: Is what you are saying: (1) for properties that are short-term, the state has said municipalities can regulate them; and that (2) for properties that are yearly rentals, only state statute can regulat them? If so, how were we able to pass any ordinances, like the landlord registration act or the yearly inspection of 1-2 unit structures? Anyway, regardless, can't we pass an ordinance that is neutral on whther it is a rental property or not that is similar to Belmars. That ordinance says the properties that have X amount of zoning violations have to post a bond to guarantee future payment. Can't we do the same thing here and have it just governing any and all propeties in the boro? |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 22, 2007 13:36:27 GMT -5
LS:
Direct from Kerry Higgins addressing the requirement of posting bonds:
There is no legal basis to require a landlord to post a bond. The statute regarding seasonal rentals (animal house) gives more rights to municipalities. But the law does not give the same regarding non-seasonal rentals because that would interfere with a tenant’s home and ability to find a place to live, rather than vacation. - Kerry Higgins
Maybe this will help clarify the issue. The (my) recommendation is still to get our reps to amend the statute, so bad landlords can't hide behind the current version.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by ls on Jun 22, 2007 14:08:38 GMT -5
Marc, l understand that and for whatever reason that is the law. And I am not trying to bust bulls on this, and this is all just thinking aloud
...but my point is:
in the LS ordinance...
(1) the landlord posts the bond, not the tenant (so it doesn't interfere with "a tenant's ability to find a place to live"); and
(2) crafting an ordinance for only repeat offenders, regardless of whether it is a rental or owned by the person living there (that way it is not geared only towards rentals, but geared only towards actual offenders with a history of such).
So, it would seem that the above would be different from Belmar???
The above still may be way off, but I can't get my mind around that we have crafted other ordinances regarded rental properties. So I would think that they too violate the law.
Anyway, just a mental exercise/inquiry as to the law (which seems to be "a arse")
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 22, 2007 17:02:33 GMT -5
No...keep thinking aloud. This is why we have this board in town. Let's explore your point further and see how it sets up. I'll bounce this off our legal folks and see where it goes. If it is feasible...to whom do we cut the check? Methinks you have some degree of legal training LS...attorney, paralegal or legal assistant. If not, you should. Thanks, Marc |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Jun 22, 2007 18:51:58 GMT -5
No...keep thinking aloud. This is why we have this board in town. Let's explore your point further and see how it sets up. I'll bounce this off our legal folks and see where it goes. If it is feasible...to whom do we cut the check? Methinks you have some degree of legal training LS...attorney, paralegal or legal assistant. If not, you should. Thanks, Marc HELLO..... impose a $5000 bond per apartment, on the landlord which goes into a "Relocation Fund". This is just a cost of doing business in the Boro! |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 25, 2007 8:48:23 GMT -5
Nobody DOESN'T want to do this. Unfortunately, the legal statutes have to win out on these things. However, If they are in disagreemenrt, on this one, I would push to see them changed.
It's just that the liberal interpretations of such things, in NJ, often takes too much into account and protects the bad guys by wrapping them in a thin layer of good guys to keep worthwhile requirements off their backs.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jun 25, 2007 9:08:05 GMT -5
No...keep thinking aloud. This is why we have this board in town. Let's explore your point further and see how it sets up. I'll bounce this off our legal folks and see where it goes. If it is feasible...to whom do we cut the check? Methinks you have some degree of legal training LS...attorney, paralegal or legal assistant. If not, you should. Thanks, Marc I work for the firm Cohen & Grisby. Here is a promotional video, please watch it: youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU |
|
|
|
Post by Marc Le Vine on Jun 25, 2007 10:24:05 GMT -5
Thanks, LS. I found that very interesting. Years ago, I worked for an Indian-owned Off-Shore IT company and we had our own Immigration Attorney working on H1B visa's.
From talking to people, I can see that lots of immigration lawyers work within the gray areas of the law. There seems to be lots of upfront payments given and promises made as well as lots of lost retainers laid out and false hopes returned.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jun 25, 2007 10:28:29 GMT -5
I'll re-post the video in the immigration area so it'll have a topic all its own. People should watch it and see what is going on in this country.
|
|
