|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Feb 8, 2007 19:51:26 GMT -5
Illegals would be barred as tenants under proposed law
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 02/8/07
BY NICK PETRUNCIO
FREEHOLD BUREAU
Post Comment
FREEHOLD — People seeking to rent apartments or homes here would have to prove they are citizens or show proof of legal status in the United States under a committee recommendation the Borough Council is considering.
The recommendation is similar to measures proposed in other towns across the country where some of the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants have settled.
At a council meeting Monday, the Rental Property Advisory Committee offered 15 recommendations on a variety of issues, including absentee landlords, tenant exploitation and apartment overcrowding and upkeep.
The committee, made up of seven volunteers, examined such matters for the past year.
Besides barring illegals, other recommendations included conducting mandatory annual inspections of all rental properties — a proposal that has been adopted — and hiring well-trained support staff and inspectors, including bilingual workers, in the Code Enforcement Office.
"We are going to take these recommendations very seriously," Mayor Michael Wilson said.
Wilson said the next step is to meet with borough professionals and determine what can and cannot be done. Neither he nor any council members indicated what other recommendations might be adopted.
Vehement objections
However, recommendation 15 — the one about landlords renting to citizens or people with "permanent residency" — struck a nerve with one committee member, a local advocate of Latino rights.
Frank Argote-Freyre, a Freehold resident who heads the Monmouth County chapter of the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey, wrote to the council urging rejection of that idea. He sent the Asbury Park Press a copy of the letter.
In it, and in an interview Wednesday, Argote-Freyre said the idea is misguided because it shifts the debate away from the issue of absentee landlords and has the borough taking on matters of immigration, a national issue.
Moreover, he said, the idea could lead to discriminatory practices such as landlords refusing to rent to people just because they appear to be immigrants.
Councilman Marc LeVine said focusing only on that recommendation misses the point of why the committee was formed, and he criticized Argote-Freyre for making his letter public.
"It's diverting all the good work of the committee," LeVine said.
He said the intent was to bring rental properties under control regardless of who is living in them. There have been abuses with absentee landlords who have ignored borough ordinances and instances of people not on the lease living in unapproved attics and basements, he said.
"People could get killed" because of such infractions, he said.
"We need to set the bar very high in Freehold with regard to the way all property owners maintain their properties, not just renters," he said.
Committee Chairwoman Maureen Haley said the committee presented the proof of legal status recommendation as an idea worth consideration, and the group is not endorsing its adoption.
LeVine said the recommendation was made as an afterthought because it has been a "hot-burner" issue in communities such as Riverside in Burlington County and Hazleton, Pa. He said the borough needs to monitor how similar laws fare in court.
More controversy
Another recommendation with which Argote-Freyre took issue was the language used in recommendation 12: to "deputize" public works employees to report possible violations. He said this implies giving police powers to people other than the police, but he added he did not believe that was the intent of the committee.
Haley said that was not the intention and the letter puts things in the wrong light. She said the committee simply meant that "we need other ears and eyes for our overburdened code-enforcement officers." The committee wants people in the community to report suspected violations to authorities.
LeVine said Argote-Freyre had a good point and "deputize" was the wrong word to use. "Empower" would have been better. Haley did use both words in her presentation to the council, Argote-Freyre noted.
LeVine added that it is time to put the federal court settlement between the borough and Latino plaintiffs regarding housing and other issues to rest.
Haley said she hopes the recommendations are taken in the proper spirit.
"It's not just a Hispanic-versus-everyone-else issue," she said. "We were trying to do what was best for everybody."
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 8, 2007 20:32:39 GMT -5
With all the negativity surrounding FF's actions, why was he appointed to yet another committee as part of the Maplewood delegation?
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Feb 8, 2007 23:55:55 GMT -5
With all the negativity surrounding FF's actions, why was he appointed to yet another committee as part of the Maplewood delegation? Because ... thought the "Advocates" would like to paint the Boro government as one sided, heavy handed, and implied racists, Your questions cleverly resolves your answer!!! There is a Judicious Fairness the Boro government exhibits through ongoing community outreach reach that continuously gets spit upon, spun around and vilified. Better to be INCLUSIVE and Exclusive! And if the payback is a high hard one...who is the real loser on the deal? As they say, keep your friends close..... |
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 9, 2007 9:25:18 GMT -5
As they say, keep your friends close..... BULL! Keeping this guy close has done nothing good, it has only allowed him to undermine everything he has been a part of. |
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 9, 2007 10:09:22 GMT -5
Calliope,
I don't see it. He rounded up people to hand out fliers to illegals regarding the inspections. He also got lawyers involved there too. At the recent council meeting, from what I hear, he had more supporters than PEOPLE present.
His opinion garners front page coverage, while the actualy report gets a brief mention.
People are listening to him, the press is covering him and seek him out. I don't see him flaming out. I see a perpetual thorn in the side as long as the council refuses to pull it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Feb 9, 2007 10:26:52 GMT -5
This is not a committee. It's only an official visit. The HRC asked him to go, while he was still behaving himself. Believe me, I am not happy that he is going along after his most recent escapades.
The bottom line is that despite his disruptive efforts, he can't really hurt the rental property recommendations. He only "dented" some of the "fanfare" surounding its release. BIG DEAL.
The real victims are the chairwoman and his fellow committee members. And, they will get over this quickly. Especially, after several of their recommendations are implemented and have the desired impact within the rental community.
As for Maplewood? This trip is more about gaining a better understanding of the diversity piece. We know that Freehold Borough will always remain diverse and will have a growing Latino population (whenever immigration reform finaly arrives and when the folks are no longer considered "illegals"). We just want to learn how other towns, like Maplewood, have maintained and leveraged their diversity to remain an attractive community for newcomers. Every part of their town is well integrated. From what I understand, there are no areas of town designated by race. Everyone lives side by side. This is a good thing.
If Frank wants to find fault with this visit he'll have to be a little more creative.
...And, who really gives a sh*t about satisfying Frank, anyway.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Feb 9, 2007 10:28:43 GMT -5
Not true. It was just Frank, the Baldwins, Stan Organek and two Latino women with their kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Feb 9, 2007 10:34:55 GMT -5
Because, he represents the opposing views. Two sides spell controversy. And controversy sells newspapers. If there were other critics, the attention would be shared among them.
The media doesn't seek Frank out. He chases them down and uses his big, fancy title to qualify himself.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Feb 9, 2007 10:45:06 GMT -5
Most people are "hearing" him, but not listening to him. How many people do we know agree wih him -outside of his small band of local advocates.
In almost 4 years, what new faces have joined him at Council meetings? Matter of fact, he lost one - Steve Richter.
Meanwhile, his opposition has added many new faces, coming to council meetings -- Brian Sullivan, Ted Miller, Jeanne Flegler, Sean Payton... I can go on and on.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Feb 9, 2007 11:34:22 GMT -5
"the press is covering him and seek him out."
As we all know, the press does NOT report on News, they feed off of titlation and sensationalism!!!!
The vast majority of people do NOT believe what the read in t he Press!!! Please..
LS, where you at the Council meeting? And what side of the room would you had sat?
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Feb 9, 2007 12:44:28 GMT -5
"compadres" is that english???
As in ...
We The Compadres?
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Feb 9, 2007 12:53:53 GMT -5
Thomas Jefferson favored immigration restriction. In 1782 he stated in part in his Notes on Virginia:
‘But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against any advantage expected form a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which of necessity they must transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours, perhaps, are more peculiar than those of any other. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English Constitution with others derived from natural right and reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants. They will bring with them the principles of governments they leave, or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as usual, from one extreme to the other. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely atthe point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers they will share legislation with us. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp or bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.’
Did TJ call it or what???
[glow=red,2,300]render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass[/glow].
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Lover on Feb 9, 2007 14:02:24 GMT -5
It has been a few weeks since I last sent you all a message. I am really discouraged by the latest bad publicity for Freehold Borough.
I may have mentioned in the past that I have lived here for 40 years. I am not a political activist just a concerned citizen.
I cannot imagine a more misguided policy than the one suggested by the Rental Property Committee. We just came out of a lawsuit that cost us about $300,000 and now we are asking for another one.
The ink will not even be dry on the ordinance banning the rental of apartments to immigrants and we will be in federal court again.
Councilman Levine you disappoint me here. The other recommendations make sense this last one is a loser.
I also believe the negative publicity is killing us. In the last two days, I have heard immigrant advocates on three radio stations, one television station and read two articles in which they are blasting away at the measure. It was a mistake and the residents are paying the price while Councilman Levine and the immigrant advocates are gaining fame.
As I have said before, we need to reach out to the Mexican community. We look ridiculous outside our little town.
You will not be able to silence or marginalize the activists -- the Mexican community here is too large. Will someone please wake up!
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Feb 9, 2007 14:39:04 GMT -5
It has been a few weeks since I last sent you all a message. I am really discouraged by the latest bad publicity for Freehold Borough. I may have mentioned in the past that I have lived here for 40 years. I am not a political activist just a concerned citizen. I cannot imagine a more misguided policy than the one suggested by the Rental Property Committee. We just came out of a lawsuit that cost us about $300,000 and now we are asking for another one. The ink will not even be dry on the ordinance banning the rental of apartments to immigrants and we will be in federal court again. Councilman Levine you disappoint me here. The other recommendations make sense this last one is a loser. I also believe the negative publicity is killing us. In the last two days, I have heard immigrant advocates on three radio stations, one television station and read two articles in which they are blasting away at the measure. It was a mistake and the residents are paying the price while Councilman Levine and the immigrant advocates are gaining fame. As I have said before, we need to reach out to the Mexican community. We look ridiculous outside our little town. You will not be able to silence or marginalize the activists -- the Mexican community here is too large. Will someone please wake up! "The ink will not even be dry on the ordinance banning the rental of apartments to immigrants " Wrong, and do not convolute the issue ...ILLEGAL Immigrants. This is a Felony!, again just because it is conducted on a mass scale does not make it any less of a crime!! So are you suggesting the decriminalization of a felony? ALSO...YOU make this a Mexican issue, is it NOT, so please do NOT mischaracterize the issue, this is an issue about controlling and prosecuting UNLAWFUL entry into our country…making it worse is the massive scale (or on any scale for that matter)! Trust me when I tell you, the Silent MAJORITY know the truth, this is not a Mexican, Latino......it is Illegal Immigration... did I say that enough. You craft your words carfuly but to turn this into other issue is silly and divisive. Cant we all just get along??? |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Feb 9, 2007 15:03:15 GMT -5
I've gotta say something about this. How many times must it be said that "the measure" is not endorsed by the committee (or the Council) - the committee just wants the Borough to keep an eye on the where the existing court challenges are headed. So is everyone else! There are no plans to adopt this ordinance in Freehold Borough.
Therefore, this "Mexican group" you mention at St. Rose has no basis for any lawsuit - because the council has NOT even been asked to pass a Hazleton/Riverside Ordinance - just to watch what is happening, elsewhere. AS EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING. Can we be any clearer than this? Or, do you not want to understand what the recommendation CLEARLY states.
As for making the recommendation, as it were, the Chairwoman and her committee decided on recommending THEIR position on this. This was THEIR position to take after a year of meetings and discussions. My role is as ONLY as Council liaison, not as a voting member.
I will say this - if the Hazelton/Riverside Ordinance prevail's (I don't think it will) then the message would be sent that illegal immigrants can be regulated in this manner with the blessing o the Courts. Such regulations already exist in the employment world (Immigration Reform Act of 1986) - by use of the Federal I-9 form. Honest employers require the proper ID from ALL employers before job offers are extended. If they do not have the proper ID, they d not get the job or can be let go within three (3) days of hire (should they not produce their ID).
The ONLY person seeking fame here is Mr. Frank Freyre. He is your enemy - not me. Frank breached the trust of his committee and lied to his Chair, after promising her he would not take this MILD RECOMMENDATION to the Press and, instead, judt issue a letter to Mayor and Council. What kind of reputable person does this?
No, Sir! It is FRANK FRYRE and the local media (he deliberately stirred up), who created the extra attention we are getting. Anyone wanting to stand up for America and Freehold Borough does not fear the criticism we are getting, and from WHOM? Illegal immigrants and their left wing wacko advocates? I fear the majority sides with me and others who see the raw deal Freehold Borough and the rest of the nation is getting from thos issue. Absence of enforcement is not abdication of responsibility to enforce laws on the books! You can't vilify Americans for demanding that the government do what it is elected to do - enforce ou laws - ALL OF THEM.
You say you are a 40 year resident of the Borough. Forgive me if I am questioning your credentials. But you leave me no choice, because you do not give your name, as I always do. Do I know that I am not being baited here?
You are welcome to send me a personal email at stffgpr2003@yahoo.com or call me at 732-877-4077 to speak in private. I just know that most people living here 40+ years want to protect our town from the rental and related abuses we are encountering here. They clearly see what is happening to our town and remember what it was like when the abuses werem't taking place.
No. Until I/we can be sure of your real identity, I and others can only assume that your message is one of fear (Mexicans gathering to protest and sue us) and to discredit the town's efforts to corral its property maintenance and rental abuses, by keeping the focus on Item 15, when we are prepared to seriously address the other 14 items. AND, we will succeed!
Odd, that you don't cite Frank Freyre, even once, as the troublemaker in all this - despite the fact that it is public knowledge that he handled himself in a highly unprofessional and deceitful manner. Why is this? And, what might be concluded from your refusal to put the responsibility for this media circus where it truly belongs - squarely on Frank's shoulders?
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by JustDoIt on Feb 9, 2007 15:16:23 GMT -5
Mark:
Don't waste your breath. From his words, can't you tell that Freehold Lover is none other than Mister Baldwin?
JDI
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Feb 9, 2007 15:27:42 GMT -5
While we are on that topic...
By the way...we did. And we made it very easy for them to reach back. Some good business people donated $2000 to buy them bike safety vests. Over 150 were distributed. How many have you seen being worn? 700 flyers netted 3 attendees for bike safety training. What can we infer from this?
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 9, 2007 17:18:16 GMT -5
LS, what side of the room would you had sat? answer: away from you. |
|
leelye
Junior Member
Posts: 150
|
Post by leelye on Feb 9, 2007 17:41:40 GMT -5
"By the way...we did. And we made it very easy for them to reach back. Some good business people donated $2000 to buy them bike safety vests. Over 150 were distributed. How many have you seen being worn? 700 flyers netted 3 attendees for bike safety training. What can we infer from this?"
Marc,
I've seen one guy riding his bicycle with a safety vest on two times. I also noticed him walking his bike across the street at the intersection.
Leelye
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Feb 9, 2007 17:45:33 GMT -5
LS, what side of the room would you had sat? answer: away from you. Please, sit next to me! How else will we all come together, we all need to walk together, sit together and break bread together! |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 9, 2007 19:16:06 GMT -5
I am reading through this thread and many things come to mind. I will start off by giving the town council and mayor a little warning. Item number 15 must not be allowed to stand as the defining issue surrounding the RAB proposals. This can be a plus, but so far round one goes to FF. Having 15 there does show that the town still recognizes that illegal immigration is wrong and has negative consequences. Even with that, the town had better be proactive in getting the right messages out. Not only to readers of news papers, but to elected officials.
Getting beyond 15, the town must accentuate that the overall proposals are for the good of all residents. I do not know what kind of crap is being pumped into the heads of the rental community, but they must get the message that they, too, will benefit from these recommendations. The town should avoid the issue of illegal immigration when dealing with the big picture. Any town that deals with rentals has to act in a fashion that takes safety and quality of life into concern.
Look at shore towns when dealing with animal houses. They acted and combated bad behavior. Look at Ocean TWP, Long Branch, and West Long Branch. They dealt with Monmouth U. Students also renting and engaging in bad behavior. All of the above examples had similar complaints to what we have had here in Freehold. Why should we have to stick our tails between our legs and cower before narrow minded special interests, who have shown no respect toward their neighbors let alone the law of the land?
I do not believe for a minute that people reading these articles are unsympathetic toward the legal, lawful, homeowners and residents of FB.
On the subject of illegal immigration, I like the title of the APP article that dealt with the rental issues. They referred to illegals as just that, illegal. They did not mince words and call them "undocumented" or fall into the common mistake of making this a Latino issue. The loss here, though, was the bigger picture. Again, the town needs to be proactive in combating mistaken or bad press.
To address Lybian Sybil, that council meeting had far more people who agreed with us than the Latino Leadership Alliance. I bring this up i context of future actions by the LLA and other like minded individuals. I say let them, especially on this issue. The topic of rental regulation is one for Freehold to lose. We should not. If we do, it will be our own fault. Let them go to meetings and have marches. They will not gain any sympathy from anyone.
Law suits? I know some are still bent over that little one that was just settled, but get over it. That is in the past. I know some of us speculate that another suit will be brought. I say bring it on. The rental board issues would be perfect. This will be a clear cut victory for us. Just like the animal houses, Monmouth U. students and other places that deal with similar issues, Freehold will be able to do the same-- regain some sanity and quality of life.
It is safe to say, that we will win this. Item 15 is DOA. We know it. It will only create fanfare.We all know that is not the main issue for the rental board. And if the courts do allow item 15 to stand in other places, it will just be and added bonus for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Feb 10, 2007 9:49:33 GMT -5
There goes my crazy fingers and my nutty keyboard again... 732-866-4077 is my CORRECT phone number.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Feb 10, 2007 10:12:27 GMT -5
Brian:
It is important to note that these recommendations are solely those of a committee of residents, landlords and professionals that are sharing their public views for the very first time.
The Advocates should take note that this was a racially and professionally diverse group made up of many people that they have never heard from before, on this issue.
This is the first we are hearing from people named Haley, Oliver, Smith, Kristiansen and Sobin. Sobin, who - himself - is a professional property manager for Charles Kushner (Westminster Properties) - A REAL APARTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY - at Post & Coach. And, Rich (Sobin), openly criticized Frank Freyre in several committee meetings, when Frank implied to the committee the Sobin didn't know his own job. Rich actually sides with the town against some of the pigs that own other rental properties in Freehold, knowing full well that whatever the town decides to do to step up code enforcement, may directly effect his apartments and his own job.
Lisa Kristiansen, a successful realtor, fully understands the damage that other area realtors are doing to the Borough by "selling" it to clients as a great place for "investor properties." She, too, will stand against her colleagues on this issue.
Yes, these are mostly new people with a new set of opinions on the issue. No one told them what to propose or to vote on. They were simply being themselves an reflective of how most Americans feel.
The commitee felt they needed to include Item 15, because it was a big issue during the time of their service on the committee and that had it not been dealt with, many Freehold Borough residents would be scratching their heads. It would look as if the committee's work was incomplete and arbitrary. They dealt with item 15 the right way...
...they saw it...acknowledged it...and put it to bed. That's actually positive closure, for both sides of the aisle. Frank prefers to attack the Mayor and Council on what they do, but fails to acknowledge that many others from all walks of life form an army against him and his cronies.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Feb 10, 2007 12:13:31 GMT -5
"....prefers to attack the Mayor and Council on what they do, but fails to acknowledge that many others from all walks of life form an army against him and his cronies."
I'd like to acknowledge the fact that the Mayor and council have an ongoing interest and support of Habitat for Humanity, as well as the Rugmill Housing imitative!
Humm..how about an "ADVOCATE" saying "Thank You" or is the MALCONTENT his preferred type casted role of an "Advocate".
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Feb 11, 2007 23:30:32 GMT -5
My recommendations: 1. Forget #15. Smells like a lawsuit ready to happen. Let some other town be the pioneers. 2. Change the word "deputize" in #12 to something else. 3. Follow only the recommendations that you are willing to stick with. That means that you must be willing to fight in court if you have to. All great points!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Maureen Haley on Feb 12, 2007 15:01:42 GMT -5
I must express concern about the unjustified focus on a single recommendation out of the 15 made recently by the Freehold Borough Rental Advisory Committee—that the Borough Council consider the feasibility of an ordinance that some other towns have adopted, which would require anyone renting an apartment or home to present valid proof of citizenship or permanent residency.
This misplaced focus is due at least in part to the action of one of our Committee members, who released his opinion to the press prior to the public announcement of the recommendations. While the Committee understood his objection to this item, his rogue action seems to have resulted in shifting attention from all of our suggestions to only one controversial item. This focus is exacerbated by media headlines like "Illegals would be barred as tenants under proposed law" (APP, 2/8/07), and “Ban on renting to illegals may be requested” (NT, 2/7/07).
Upon examination of the language chosen by my fellow volunteers, one can see that we are recommending this NOT for adoption, but ONLY for consideration by the Borough Council and its legal and other advisors.
If one examines the complete list of recommendations, it can be seen that many of them address the irresponsibility of absentee landlords who neglect the exterior and interior of their property. This neglect results in hazardous living conditions for tenants of these landlords, quality of life problems for neighboring residents, and lower property values for the whole community. Neglectful landlords in turn contribute to a degraded sense of community in our neighborhoods.
Other recommendations deal with Code Enforcement issues such as increasing fines, the administering of fines, inspections, and increasing Code Enforcement personnel. One of our recommendations (which includes five sub-recommendations) deals with implementing educational forums for both landlords and tenants.
The Committee was formed to research potential solutions to the rental property situation here in the Borough. We put forth tremendous effort and skillfully crafted a fair and comprehensive set of recommendations. The Mayor and Council have begun to consider each one of them. I am optimistic that tenants whose welfare is disregarded by inconsiderate landlords and homeowners who experience daily frustration with neighboring rental properties will find some relief.
Maureen Haley
Chairwoman
Freehold Borough Rental Property Advisory Committee
|
|
