Tensions with FLLA Rises

[BrianSullivan]

newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2010-06-16/Front_Page/Landlord_registration_fee_is_topic_of_debate.html

Landlord registration fee is topic of debate

BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer
FREEHOLD — Landlords who own rental properties in Freehold Borough attended the June 7 meeting of the Borough Council to state their concerns about amendments to a municipal ordinance that sets property registration fees.

The amendments to the ordinance were introduced by a unanimous vote of the council. A public hearing on the matter has been scheduled for the council’s June 28 meeting at 7 p.m. The council may vote at that time to adopt the amended ordinance.

The landlord registration application ordinance when originally adopted in 2003 called for an initial landlord registration fee of $500 per property, then a $300 fee per property for the second year providing there were no violations, and then a $100 annual fee per property as long as there were no violations.

In 2009 the initial registration fee for a new landlord went up to $600 (from $500) and then maintained a $300 annual fee thereafter as long as the property was violation free. If violations occurred the registration fee went back to $600.

The amendment introduced by the council on June 7 sets a $300 initial registration fee and maintains that amount as the annual fee per property.

Some landlords said the jump from a $100 annual fee to a $300 annual fee is too much to bear in difficult economic times.

Jeff Friedman, who owns rental property on Broad Street, said the landlords association has tried, to no avail, to make their concerns known to borough officials.

“We reached out to the mayor, who referred us to the Rental Advisory Committee. The mayor said he did not want our association to be bypassed, but we have not heard back from him,” Freidman said. “We expressed our willingness to meet and only one council member worked with us.”

Friedman said he had one meeting with the Rental Advisory Committee and believed a constructive dialogue took place and that made him feel hopeful.




“But we were bypassed anyway,” he said. “We were very disheartened. Our fee went from $100 a year to $300 a year, and now you have removed the penalty for bad landlords which was $600, for their registration renewal. Why let the bad landlords off the hook and continue to increase the fees for landlords who play by the rules? This property amendment is like a kick in the gut to us. I believe you all care, but by your actions tonight it does not appear that way.”

Another property owner, Christopher Lopresti, told the council that the discussions with borough officials had not gotten the landlords very far.

“We requested that the annual fee be put back to $100 per year. We have worked diligently and I am shocked that the property amendment addressees three minor issues when many issues are here. We wanted to address all of our concerns before the annual registration was here,” Lopresti said. “Put the fee back where it was. It worked.”

Lopresti said he wants to work with borough officials and not be forced to take legal action.

Borough Attorney Kerry Higgins told Lopresti she received a letter from the landlords’ attorney, Charles Gormally, requesting that the ordinance list $10 for rental property registration.

Lopresti responded, saying, “Oh, that was just lawyer posturing.”

But Higgins said she had no reason to believe the attorney’s letter wasn’t a bona fide offer.

Commenting on the matter, Councilwoman Sharon Shutzer said, “We represent the residents in Freehold Borough, not the landlords. We are concerned about overcrowding and our absentee landlords. You are not getting the answers you want, that’s why you think we aren’t doing anything. And now you’re threatening us with a lawsuit.”

Rental property inspections were also changed from annually to once every three years. Additional changes include removing the names of children on the landlord registration form and to only require the age and gender of children who are living at a particular location.

Higgins said there are different types of inspections in the borough, including a systematic inspection that is done alphabetically annually, as well as inspections for rental properties that change occupants. She said at times, the inspections overlapped.

“We were duplicating inspections,” the attorney said. “When we have a new CO (certificate of occupancy), the unit is always inspected. It made more sense and was more economically feasible to have the inspections done every three years.”

In response to comments made by the representatives of the landlords association, Mayor Michael Wilson said, “There has been vast mismanagement by landlords over the past 30 years and it has almost ruined the borough. And that is all I’m going to say.”

In a subsequent conversation with Friedman, the property owner said rental inspections that occur at night without notice is another concern of the landlords association.

“We ask that our tenants, who are residents of the borough, be treated with the same dignity and respect we all deserve. No American’s home should be subject to inspection and search in the dark of night without probable cause or a warrant and I have yet to meet one person who disagrees with that,” he said.

On that issue, Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina said the municipality has an aggressive code enforcement policy and he said these inspections are part of the systematic code enforcement inspection process that have been approved by the courts and welcomed by the citizenry.

In a subsequent conversation with Higgins, the attorney said the comments made by members of the landlords association at the June 7 meeting were “not in synch with what we agreed upon at our meetings.”

She added there were at least three meetings between Freehold Borough officials and representatives of the landlords association. Higgins said overcrowding in some residential units in the borough has dictated an aggressive code enforcement policy and she said it has proven to be very effective.

“The code enforcement protocol has evolved over time. It is a work in progress and it should evolve as conditions change. No one wants to return to the conditions of years ago,” she said.

Friedman also expressed concern about what he called “vicarious liability,” which in this case means holding a landlord responsible for a violation committed by the tenant.

Higgins said borough officials take the position that every property owner, whether a rental property or owner occupied, is responsible and accountable for their property.

“The landlords have taken the position that they should not be held accountable for their tenant’s actions, even when those actions violate the property maintenance code (appliances left on a lawn, unsanitary conditions, blocked egress, etc.),” Higgins said. “In order to facilitate compliance with the property maintenance code, there has been a tentative agreement to defer prosecution against the landlord to give them an initial opportunity to compel compliance by the tenant.”

She reiterated that “ultimately, every property owner in Freehold Borough is and will be held responsible and accountable for

the condition of their property.”

Higgins said talks with representatives of the landlords association are continuing.

[BrianSullivan]

www.app.com/article/20100615/NEWS/6150329/Landlords-in-Freehold-oppose-new-fee-plan

Landlords in Freehold oppose new fee plan
By KIM PREDHAM • STAFF WRITER • June 15, 2010


FREEHOLD — Unresolved issues between the borough and a group representing Freehold landlords could soon head to court if the two sides cannot come to an agreement.





"I believe it's going to come to a head real soon," said Christopher LoPresti, a founder of the Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey.

Tensions between the two factions broke out into the open last week, when the Borough Council introduced amendments to rules concerning landlord licensing fees and rental inspection and registration.

The council is expected to decide on adopting those rules June 28.

The amendments would require landlords to pay a flat $300 fee annually for each rental property they own, rather than the graduated system currently in place. Systematic inspections of rental units would be held at least once every three years. And the names of child tenants would no longer have to be listed on the rental property registration statement established by the borough.

Borough officials have met several times with landlord association members, who have raised concerns about the borough's approach to landlords, particularly the licensing fees imposed on them.

"I'm just shocked that we're proposing to amend the ordinance for three kind of minor issues, when there were major issues that we were discussing," LoPresti said at the June 7 council meeting.

Members did not receive a warm reception from borough officials.

Landlords will find little sympathy from him, Mayor Michael Wilson said last week, since in the past 30 years, "The vast majority of landlords almost ruined Freehold Borough."

The two sides disagree on how much landlords should be charged but discussions are continuing, Borough Attorney Kerry Higgins said last week. She feels officials have made a good faith effort to resolve landlords' concerns.

But association member Jeff Friedman says members want the annual fee reduced to $100, the amount previously charged to landlords who went two or more years without a conviction for any local rental property violation. That fee was increased in 2009.

Landlords had also called for an end to unannounced inspections. As for the registration statement, Friedman said members want just tenants that are on the lease named on the document.

In an e-mail Monday, Friedman said, "We remain hopeful that we will be able to work in partnership to work toward a solution that will address the concerns of all."
Kim Predham:

732-308-7752;

[e-mail]

[lisa]

Jun 15, 2010 16:02:47 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

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.

Brian thats why I suggested retired Police they know how to carry themselves, how to talk to people, and know better than anyone else if the situation might be dangerous. If we hired a few of them part-time put them in some type of uniform that said code enforcement on it. It may save many people from being uncomfortable.

[adefonzo]

Wow...that was a lot of reading!!! As I look down at the page of notes that I took along the way, I realize that I had better go the bathroom before I sit down to put in my two cents on this thread...

Ok...let's get to it...

Let me preface this with a quick statement. I don't think it will come as a shock to anyone who knows me or who has read what I have written both here and in the News Transcript in the past...but I don't trust Mayor Wilson or several of the members of our Town Council on anything, so I will certainly not be defending their actions here. Any thought of support for them went right out the window when the Mayor opened up his mouth and claimed that it was the vast majority of landlords that have almost ruined Freehold Boro over the last 30 years. Oh really, Mr. Mayor??? And tell me, please, for how many of those 30 years have you been Mayor??? I believe we're at 25 years and counting??? But it's "the landlord's fault", right??? Give me a break!!!

Then I get to see Councilwoman Shutzer saying that the landlords aren't going to hear what they want to hear. I couldn't agree more...in fact...the only ones that seem to hear what they want to hear from our governing body are the LLA, Casa Freehold, and the other groups that seem to have them firmly draped over a barrel.

And finally, Attorney Higgin's...got a couple of things about her comments. First, her remark about how the overcrowding dictated an "aggressive" code enforcement policy which in her mind (and I'm guessing the rest of the town's politician's minds) has proven to be very effective. "Very effective"? Really??? Didn't I read somewhere earlier that there were 11 violations on overcrowding last year? That's their definition of "very effective"

But the comment that I really liked was when she was trying to explain why they are going from annual inspections to every 3 years.

Higgins said there are different types of inspections in the borough, including a systematic inspection that is done alphabetically annually, as well as inspections for rental properties that change occupants. She said at times, the inspections overlapped.

“We were duplicating inspections,” the attorney said. “When we have a new CO (certificate of occupancy), the unit is always inspected. It made more sense and was more economically feasible to have the inspections done every three years

Maybe I'm just way off on this one...but how often are occupants being changed out in these rental properties that they have to apply for a new CO?? Even so...now you've created a situation where someone can be in the same property, run it into the ground, and if no one calls code enforcement, they won't be bothered for 3 years!!! You know how much damage you can do in 3 months?? 3 weeks even!!! Never mind 3 years!!! But let's just make it easier on code enforcement...wouldn't want to have to "overburden" them. I mean, it's no wonder the "landlords have almost ruined this town"....there's always an excuse from the Town about enforcing the laws and codes!!

You know what...forget it...let's get back to matters of substance, since nothing that comes out of Boro Hall has any substance to it at all.

Let's deal first with the big topics of the Landlord Group (FLLA, FLANJ, or whatever).

The registration fee. First of all, I'm glad Clare finally explained the actual numbers involved, because that was a big question while reading through the first page of this thread. Quick recap...used to be $500 year 1, $300 year 2, $100 thereafter provided no violations. By the way...bear in mind this was back when they were initially doing inspections every year (if I am wrong, correct me). Then, a year ago, $600 year one, $300 thereafter - again, provided no violations...and again...annual inspections. Now, the new plan, $300 year one and every year thereafter, seemingly despite any violations and now with inspections only every 3 years (yeah, it's all the landlord's fault, Mr Mayor).

Let me ask this first...when a landlord pays that initial fee on a property they just bought, I am assuming that is some sort of license fee to rent at that particular property...am I right? Or is it something else? Anyhow, I have no idea what it costs the Boro to process this paperwork, do the inspections, and whatever else goes into the fee, so the actual dollar amount I'm not going to quibble over. I just don't see how you can justify going from a graduated system to a flat fee, especially since you're eliminating annual inspections, which would add to the cost of what the town does each year for each rental property, strictly from a dollars and cents perspective.

Furthermore, I partially agree with Mr Friedman and his fellow landlords when he says that it's not right that they have removed the penalty portion for those landlords who have violations...I mean, I thought the whole purpose was to punish those who were the real troublemakers??? Now, they're just going to put everyone on a level playing field??? I would buy into this approach a little bit more if there was an added stipulation that landlords with violations would simply have their registration, or license, or whatever simply revoked. I never liked the idea of simply charging them more each year if they have a violation, because

1. It does get passed right down to the tenant, and the violation may not have anything to do with the tenant

2. I don't believe in letting someone continue to "run their business" when they continue to have violations against them. I'm not allowed to continue driving if I have multiple violations (or even 1 violation if it's the right one), why should someone be allowed to continue renting properties in town if they violate the rules?

Anyway...next issue...night time inspections.

Mr. Friedman, I appreciate you're quoting the 4th Amendment, glad to see some people actually read the document before quoting the supposed "rights" it gives us, or the state, or the feds, or whoever. Now, let's not beat around the bush. As it's been said, the biggest problem with the rental units is overcrowding, and most of the other problems stem from this one issue. Now, if the code enforcement sent notice that "Hey, we're going to come by at 8pm tonight to inspect the residence", do you think some of the folks who are "overcrowding" the place might "go out for a beer" around that time??? The police don't normally give advance notice when they are serving a warrant to search someone's home for, say, drugs, or other criminal evidence, right??

Since you brought up the Constitution, I say we stick to it. If the code enforcement has probable cause to believe that a violation is occurring at a residence sworn by oath or affirmation, and the proper paperwork is filed (whatever that may be), they show up, and they are allowed, BY LAW, to enter and search to see if that specific violation is in fact occurring. Sorry, the tenants don't get advance notice so that they might somehow cover up the possible violation, just like the drug dealer doesn't get advance notice so that they can flush the coke down the toilet bowl.


You know what...I just looked at the time...and I am going to have to finish this post tomorrow, because the USA World Cup game comes on in about 30 minutes, and there are just some things that take precedence right now. Besides, I've already written enough to get a few people angry with me...I'll get the rest of them tomorrow.

[jefffriedman]

Andrew,

I would just like to clarify one point regarding night time inspections.

I in no way dispute the ability for code or Police to go into any location with probable cause, an administrative warrant or regular warrant without notice, of course, for investigative or enforcement actions. I have said exactly what you are saying a number of times in this thread so I see no disagreement on that. (see reply #9, 6/14/10; reply 17, 6/15/10; reply 27, 6/15/10)

My concern is with the routine systematic inspections which are done at night without direct notice.

In apartments I have lived in you get direct notice of a routine inspection and it is done during the day scheduled. Much like the cable guy or phone installer, or like regular code inspections. (which is what a routine systematic inspection is, a regular code inspection.)

To be sure, routine systematic inspections are different than searches based on cause.

[lisas84]

Andrew wrote: "I realize that I had better go the bathroom before I sit down to put in my two cents on this thread..."

Andrew! I hope everything came out OK!

[adefonzo]

Ok...after being a tad bit disappointed with last nights game (talk all you want about the "great comeback" in the second half, bottom line is, they should have won the game outright...never should have had to come from behind), let me get back to the rest of my diatribe on this topic.

First...don't worry, Lisa, everything is functioning and flowing as it should.

Second, Mr. Friedman, just to quickly expand a bit on what I mentioned off this thread, I think we are in agreement. The typical, scheduled annual (or now once every 3 years) inspection is one that the tenant and landlord should be notified about and it should occur during the day, even if that means on a weekend though, since there may well be occurrences where people are not home during the normal work week to accept the code enforcement officials. Just to further that thought...if code officials have tried unsuccessfully to gain access during the day, then a night time inspection may have to occur, but this should only be after attempting a daytime inspection, and with proper notice.

However...inspections that result from complaints, police reports, phone calls from neighbors, etc. which may indicate a violation...that's a different story. If a report or complaint is filed, the code enforcement office should process whatever necessary paperwork, and then go to the residence, unannounced, in order to investigate the issue. This does not give way to illegal searches, because the code enforcers would have to have proper documentation (warrants or whatever they may be for code enforcement) before being allowed to enter. Tenants who refuse to allow a code enforcement officer into the residence when they have the legal authority to do so, should be penalized in some form. I don't know how...so don't ask...but it should be something along the lines of someone who tries to prevent a police officer or detective from serving a search warrant.

Anyway...moving on...

Another issue raised was the public listing of all landlords and their properties, whether good or bad, and some related this to a Sex Offenders list. Well...get ready for this one...I don't agree with the public release of Sex Offenders names and addresses, so I certainly will not agree with this premise. By releasing the names of all landlords and their rental properties, all the Boro is doing is creating a force of neighborhood rats and spies who will take it as their mission to monitor those rental properties for anything they deem to be not right. Congratulations...now you have created a sense of mistrust in the community, and you have created more headaches for code enforcement who are going to be peppered with calls from residents around town who have no idea what the laws and regulations really are, but they don't like the way the folks down the block in that rental home are letting their grass grow too long!!

You have a code enforcement agency for a reason. They know the laws and codes, let them enforce it. Let them monitor those properties that are known to have repeated complaints and violations. While I understand that there should and will be times when a member of the public calls in a complaint, or to question if something is a violation of the code, I do not feel it is the job of the people in town to police one another, and that's what you create when you release these names and addresses to the public. We can talk about why I don't agree with a public release of sex offenders names and addresses (or the names of anyone who has committed a crime) on another thread.

The last big issue seemed to be about who gets ticketed for violations. Let me start with the chart that the FLANJ presented. I have to say...I laughed when I read this chart. The only place where this chart shows a violation being issued to the landlord/owner of the property is under Safety & Health...but this is shown as something that is the tenant's responsibility, and a letter is to be written to the landlord only...not to the town or code enforcement. So...if this isn't fixed...how does the town know to issue the fine?? Kinda confusing.

I know, I simplify things way too much sometimes, but it seems to me that if you own the property, you're responsible for what happens on it, so you pay the penalty if there is a code violation. Should you be given a time to fix the violation? Absolutely (well...based on the violation that is...some serious ones may require immediate fines), but if it doesn't get fixed...you're responsible, not the tenant.

It might sound cruel hearted and mean, but I don't want to hear about how you might end up with some bumb tenant, and the laws make it so difficult to get someone out if they are a problem. There are risks involved with just about any investment...and owning and renting properties is no different. If you don't like the way the system is set up, work to make changes but while you do so, live by the rules that exist...or, just don't get into the game.

There were a couple of other tidbits that came up in the discussion that I wanted to bring up.

Mr. Friedman, you mentioned somewhere along the line that (paraphrasing here) Tenants are residents & deserve the same dignity, respect, and Constitutional treatment as us all. This is a topic that should get it's own thread...but let me quickly say that absent from this entire discussion has been one word about the fact that many of these overcrowded, poorly kept properties are inhabited by the illegal immigrant population in town. I know...no one wants to let the discussion go in that direction...but let's be honest...the two are meshed together rather tightly. Because of that, I take issue with the thought that they deserve the same Constitutional treatment as the rest of us...but again...perhaps another thread should be opened to continue that discussion.

And finally...hold on...let me find it...

Jun 15, 2010 8:19:59 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

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.

While I have a smile on my face from ear to ear after reading those words from Brian, it is obvious that he is not listening to Mayor Mike. Remember, Brian, it's the landlords who have almost ruined Freehold Boro over the last 30 years...not our Mayor and Town Council. Yeah...had to get that in one last time.

[lisas84]

Andrew, first, good to know all is well with your GI system! Uprooting yourself to travel halfway round the world actually does stress the digestive system, and to quote a poster's handle: Fiber is good for you.

Second, you wrote: "Another issue raised was the public listing of all landlords and their properties, whether good or bad, and some related this to a Sex Offenders list. Well...get ready for this one...I don't agree with the public release of Sex Offenders names and addresses, so I certainly will not agree with this premise. By releasing the names of all landlords and their rental properties, all the Boro is doing is creating a force of neighborhood rats and spies who will take it as their mission to monitor those rental properties for anything they deem to be not right. Congratulations...now you have created a sense of mistrust in the community, and you have created more headaches for code enforcement who are going to be peppered with calls from residents around town who have no idea what the laws and regulations really are, but they don't like the way the folks down the block in that rental home are letting their grass grow too long!!"

I personally do not feel that this is an equal comparison and here's why. With sex offenders: on one hand, one can argue that he paid his dues and deserves the right to start over. But, more insidiously, sex offenses are known psychopathological compulsions that have no known cure or control, and thus the guy will likely re-offend in the same manner. So, with that in mind, I do believe it behooves society for people to be warned so they may be wary.

The other part here is releasing landlord names, which is not so cut and dried. I see your point about people making annoying phone calls to Code. So, perhaps then, there can be posted a list of actionable violations and a list of "Why NOT to call us." Or something like that.

[jefffriedman]

Andrew,

Your criticism of our chart is well placed. I admit the chart is not the clearest document for all to follow. I agree the property owner/landlord is ultimately responsibly for the property.
What the chart does not specify, which we thought is obvious, is, for example, under the exterior side box, the property owner is solely responsible, same with the registration/ illegal aprt. box so of course the ticket would go to the property owner.
Same would be true under health and safety. Why is it under the "tenant responsibility" part of the chart? Because smoke and Carbon detectors are allways checked when a C of O is issued. It is the tenant that take the bateries out or otherwise disable them ie. a tenants action but yes the landlords is responsible.
As for the other two, if the landlord/property owner does not file the proper notices to cease, quit, or if not fixed, eviction notice, something that is not required under the current system, then the landlord is defacto on notice and is responsible for any continued violation.
So yes I think our chart can be made clearer, I am in agreement with your point I think our chart implies what you are saying. To be sure I belive if a problem does not get fixed it is ultimately the property owner’s responsibility.

Andrew said "and a letter is to be written to the landlord only...not to the town or code enforcement."
This I do not understand, The letter talked about in the chart are comming from code to the property owner/landlord and Tenant. They are writing the notices of violation why would code write a letter to itself.

As for the illegal immigration issue, landlords are not the INS or federal authorities. To blame landlords for illegal immigration, not that you are doing that here, but I have heard it from others does not fly. If local officials are not allowed to inquire about statues, or enforce immigration laws how can landlords.
You say you take issue with the fact that tenants deserve the same Constitutional rights of the rest of us because some are illegal immigrants;
first, when one knocks on a door one can not tell if the person opening the door is legal or illegal.
second even if you some how could tell by looking at someone whether they are here legally or illegally, regardless of statues, any human being, even if they do not have all the rights and privileges extended to citizens, they are still granted basic Constitutional rights. We give basic rights to all people because only that way can we ensure that our rights will not be infringed upon. We have not surrendered our rights in the face of terrorism why should we surrender our rights in the face of this.

[adefonzo]

Jeff...I am glad to see that you do feel that ultimately the property owner is responsible. Without a doubt, there are issues that the tenant creates, but it is the property owner's responsibility to deal with the tenant that they have allowed to live there, and if the tenant does not fix the problem, then it is up to the owner to deal with it or accept the fine.

I fully admit that my knowledge of the laws surrounding rental properties is limited to what I can remember from signing several leases myself in my lifetime, but it seems that there could or should be language in a rental agreement stating that the owner has the right to take whatever steps are necessary to comply with local codes and ordinances, especially when the tenant refuses to do so. Of course, there has to be a period given to the landlord to deal with these issues (again, except for some code violations which may need immediate action), and the public living around the rental property has to be aware of this as well. Other owners can not assume that if I call Code enforcement today, the mess will be cleaned up tomorrow. For better or for worse, the legal system that has developed in America has the ability to bog down even the simplest of tasks, but in order for code enforcement to do their job properly, they must follow the laws.

Quickly about the letter that was to be written to "the landlord only", the reason why I made I disagreeumption was because nowhere in the flow chart (along that string of steps) did I see code enforcements involvement, only a the previous step which mentioned that it was a tenant issue, which is why I assumed the tenant would write the letter to the landlord only. Now that you have described the intent of that particular area, it does make more sense...but I do have to ask why code enforcement would not also issue a letter or notice to the tenant while they are there on the inspection...especially since, again, you list this type of violation as a tenant issue.

Let's use, as an example (I know, I said "quickly", but as you may have noticed, I have a habit of rambling) the smoke detector. A "tenant issue" as they may have been the one to remove the batteries, or disable it in some way (covering it with a towel is always one of my favorites). When code enforcement comes for an inspection and sees that the detector is not functioning properly for whatever reason, they should issue something right then and there to the tenant while also notifying the owner immediately. A smoke detector, especially, is an "immediate fix" type of item, so the tenant should be notified so that they can put the batteries back in, take off the towel...or whatever else may need to be done. I would then say it is between the landlord and the tenant to decide who is responsible, code enforcement just needs to verify that it was fixed and that the detector is now functioning properly. Of course the landlord and tenant should be able to use the code enforcement report to see exactly why the detector was not functioning properly, and thereby be able to decide who is responsible.

Alright...that was far from quick...but I hope my point is understood. And obviously, there may be different circumstances for different violations...all we need is clear definition from the beginning so there is little to no guessing later on.

I won't get into the illegal immigration discussion...maybe tomorrow I'll open a new thread to discuss that issue...don't want to divert too much attention away from the topics raised here already.

Lisa, I didn't think the link between listing sex offenders and listing property owners were one in the same either, but I don't believe it's right to list either. Your point about listing what the public should not call about is a good idea, and it would certainly cut down on the calls...but I still think you have created a sense of mistrust and neighborhood spying when you post the names of landlords and rental properties all across the Borough. Whatever happened to knocking on someones door and getting to know your neighbor the old fashioned way, and perhaps finding out then that they are renting the property? I just have a real distaste for public lists of this kind.

[jefffriedman]

Andrew,
It is my understanding that State law mandates Landlords to solely be responsible for smoke and carbon detectors; that they are not allowed to make tenants supply or repair/replace. So even if a tenant removes or disables it is my understanding that the landlord must repair/replace the unit or batteries. That is why is most complexes I have lived in change the batteries when they change the AC filters.

The best, and really at the end of the day, the only way to stop overcrowding and unsafe conditions would be if we all reported what we saw and gave our names, then the Code dept. and Police would have the probable cause necessary to gain entry in quick order if not immediately.
That would be the biggest help in addressing overcrowding and unsafe living conditions in both rental and owner occupied properties. We just can not report problems anonymously and expect Code and other authorities to be able to do their job effectively without the first hand knowledge they can point to ensure they are within the limits of State and Federal Constitution rights.
It takes everyone property owners, landlords, and all residents working together to address this issue effectively, efficiently, and constructively.

[BrianSullivan]

The following letter is from a former and much respected councilman. I do not agree with every point, but this letter is a powerful letter with very good points and important reminders. Though I was a bit critical of the way the FLLA was treated at a meeting, this shows why the governing body must be vigilant. As an aside, I know where this former councilman lives. He is in an area with beautiful homes, many of which have been flipped into run down rentals. I am sure he is reminded on a daily basis of the problems and what a shame the rental community has brought to this town over the past years.

newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2010-06-23/Letters/Landlords_responsible_for_their_property.html

[jefffriedman]

We the FLANJ are no ones “enemy”, we do not want to “fight” anyone; we have no political agenda. Any disagreement talked about is between what Law demands and what the ordinance put in place by the governing body does; that is where this discussion lay. We have no criticism for any individual councilperson personally; we do however have disagreements based on policy positions and official decisions being make by the Governing Body and that is what our criticism is solely based on. We level no personal attack on anyone; any criticisms on actions or comments are policy based and issue oriented. The current Ordinance is in conflict with state law regarding how fees are determined; the routine systematic inspections done at night without direct notice are dehumanizing and not in keeping with the sprit of the Constitution at best, and are as practiced in violation of the Constitution.
We only wish to show support to the Mayor and Council in the continuing effort to treat all resident properly, follow the Constitution, and follow State law, three things that the current and proposed ordinances do not do.

I have thought long and hard about posting this. I do fear that this will bring acts of retribution from some; ie. Attempts to strip me of appointed positions. But here it is; I do respectfully submit this because I believe every resident must read this, must understand it. The governing body must read it and must understand how serious this is, this is not small, that this strikes at the core of our democracy; that the current and proposed ordinances’ are improper and less than optimal.

All of these questions concerns and issues have been brought before the Council, Rental Advisory Board, and Boro officials a number of times. We still seek to work in partnership with the Governing Body to address these critical issues. I do not addresses every issue here for brevity.


Freehold Borough Rental Property regulations

This is an issue of critical importance to this Boro. We are, and more importantly for this speech/ statement I am, trying to find a better way to address the concerns all residents rightfully have in ways that do not punish responsible property owners and residents; while addressing the problems caused by the irresponsible property owners and residents; while not blowing budgets, raising taxes, or raising fees that drive away responsible property owners.

Only criminals will allow themselves be treated like criminals for an extended period of time. If we drive away responsible property owners we will only be left with irresponsible property owners or vacant properties. What, in reality, would we do then?

I willingly admit I do not have or know all the answers or know or have the best solutions. I do know the current system, as practiced, is defiantly not in the spirit or within the law of the U.S. Constitution or the New Jersey Constitution, the law which are flowing from them and the Court ruling that are based on them; not to mention the fact that it is not working effectively or efficiently.

[(**As a footnote to elaborate on “not working effectively or efficiently”),
The below numbers are based on “2009 Department Report; dated 1/12/10.
On the enforcement side there were only 11 overcrowding convictions and only $18,850 in fines collected in 2009.
On the systematic inspection side there were 309 inspections completed (equals 5.49 completed inspections a week) at a charge to property owners of residential rental property in registration fees of $219,250.00 which equals, without discounting the small cost for all the rental unit licenses paperwork, $709.54 per inspection completed. How much more inefficient and ineffective can this system be.
Remember, that’s 5.49 completed inspections a week; ½ hour per inspection max, equals, with 2 inspectors, (5 man hours max) and relevant paper work for 5.49 units (1 hour max closer to 10 minuets), approximately 6 hours max of work a week collects $219,250.00 per year. Are we the only people that think there is something wrong with this math?
They are charging $300.00 for licenses and inspection per building when it really costs much less.]

That is the fact that is of most critical importance.
Our Governing Body, for what ever reason, is enforcing an unconstitutional system, one that in practice violates the civil rights of tenants, and improperly, in violation of state law type of improperly, overcharges landlords in the registration/licenses / inspection fee.
Fees charged must be reasonably related to the actual cost of the service provided, the registration and inspection, no more; this is not my opinion, it is what the law says neither landlord nor the Governing Body can alter that fact.
Even if everyone in the world hates landlords the law must still be followed; if not we all lose in the end.
We did not surrender our liberty in the face of terrorism why are we so willing to surrender the liberty of residents who live in apartments?
Why are we treating a whole group of people, tenants, like second class citizens? Subjecting them to constant fear?
Ask the rental board they heard witness accounts.

Do not confuse my words, systematic routine inspections are necessary and legal, but they can be done in a way that does not degrade the dignity of our residents who happen to be renters.

One may ask but how do we stop over crowding?
The answer is simple, If we all reported what we saw and gave our names with our reports then Code and Police would have the probable cause necessary to gain entry in quick order if not immediately. That would be the biggest help in addressing overcrowding and unsafe living conditions. We can not just report problems anonymously and expect Code and other authorities to be able to do their job effectively without the first hand knowledge they can point to ensure they are within the limits of State and Federal Constitutional rights. It takes everyone property owners and residents working together to address this issue effectively, efficiently, and constructively.

Some will ask; but if the Governing Body passed the ordinance is that not a Constitutional law? Or I thought that if the Governing Body passed it, it must be constitutional?
The short answers to those questions are wrong and very wrong.
Law are passed all the time that turn out not to be constitutional. This often occurs with no fault of anyone; it occurs because we as a society are creative and we are always looking for ways to improve things or address problems a community faces and none of us are perfect. We all struggle every day to do the right thing in one way or another, whether that is smoking or running a town, a state, or a country.

We see this all the time, the Arizona law is being questioned now, as are gun control laws. There is a long history in our country of local state and federal law being passed that have turned out to be unconstitutional on every issue you could possibly think of and even some you would not. You can not envision, well some of you can, the obscenity cases I read in law school. Segregations in Brown v. Board of education is the most famous of cases that struck down an unconstitutional law.

I stress this because I was accused a few weeks ago by a councilperson in a public forum, not the council meeting, of “trying to bring this Boro to its knees and destroy it.” That was an inaccurate statement that is an antithesis to an open democracy based on the rule of law under a state and federal constitutional system. I do not think he really believes that, but I understand that all people, including myself, do not like criticism, even on policy; so I do not take it personally. I will say however if I did not care I would not be spending the time and effort I do on the different thing I do in town.

Questing a law which you believe to be unconstitutional is, I believe, a citizen’s highest duty, it is an act that builds up our Boro, it builds up our democracy and it makes us all stronger and secure.
If we are wrong, and I know we are not because I would not of ventured down this path if I thought we, that would be fine with me; but we are not.

At the last council meeting we were told by Councilwoman Shutzer that we may not get the answers we want from the council. That would generally be a very fine, fair, and legitimate answer; one that I would agree with, but for the fact that that statement clarifies the clear, understandable, lack of understanding the Governing Body has on the issues we have presented. That lack of understanding is completely and totally understandable because, they, as we, are not experts in law relating to the Constitutionality of local regulations. That is why we hired an expert to advise us all.
We are not asking for the answers WE want, we want the answers State law and the Constitution REQUIRES and demands.

I would suggest that representing the residents requires one to try and uphold State and Federal law, State and Federal court rulings, and State and Federal Constitutional rights while also trying to address the issues at hand. If we agree with that we have no dispute.

The laws say fees charged must be rationally related to the actual costs.
To charge more than what is rationally related to the actual costs violates State Court rulings and is arguably an unlawful taking in violation of the U.S. Constitution!
The law wants to know what those costs are? 9 months no answers, no records.
We want to know; why there are no records of where violations are occurring?
9 months no answers, no records.

Is that the FLANJ’s fault? (I would suggest, as we do not posses the answers or records, only the Governing Body does, that we are not.)

The law says people should be accountable for their own actions or inactions. Whether that be landlord, property owner, or residents, rental or owner occupied. Why is that not happening? The answer “because the landlords pay” as given, is not a lawful answer.

This issues presented are not a “fight” between the Landlords/Tenants and the Council, or between the landlords/Tenants and the Boro, or between the landlords/Tenants and other residents. The issue is between what the Law says and what the Governing Body is doing. The landlords are just pointing out the discrepancy, we did not write it, or create it. Do not shoot the messenger.

I have yet to explain how and why the Governing Body has not even been following their own ordinance as written and why they are rushing these changes now so I will.
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. I never realized that, none of the landlords realized that, and the Governing Body and its attorney did not realize that either.
It was our attorney that pointed that out to everyone. Now we all know the ordinance was meant to be written to require a license for each building but it was not, and that is a fact.
We had decided that no challenge was necessary on the fee issues then because we would advise our members to do what the ordinance actually said and send in one licensing fee this year. (Fee is due July 1)
Knowing that, the governing body has now scrambled to fix that most important line; but they say they are making changes we want and that we want a lawsuit, wrong and wrong.
The changes they are making are not being done because we want those changes, they are being done because what they are dong now is obviously illegal or not happening.
They are changing 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.
They are taking 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.
They are removing 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 what we want but on what the Law obliviously requires or what is convenient for them. Why otherwise would they not fix all the problems at one time?

For the governing body to suggest otherwise is inaccurate.

Like the fees, the only reason they are making changes to fix their fee language is, in my opinion, to get the money, not fix the problems overall.
That problem with the fee language was pointed out in good faith, they took it and are changing the ordinance, in my opinion, in bad faith. That is their action not ours.
The fact that they are changing the language is all the proof we need to show that our members have been charged unlawful and therefore illegal fees.
Those illegally charged fees should be returned to the landlords, But as we are, and have been trying to fix the problem going forward, and we do not want to hurt the Boro, or force it to raise taxes, or cut services, we have not asked that our member be paid back the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fee that have been illegally charged if we can fix this together going forward.
That is our action, acts of good faith and partnership.

They know what the law says; there is no question on what it says, what it allows, and what it does not allow.

If they could prove that it cost $300.00 per building to process a registration/license form and inspect every 3 years we all know they would have produced it by now?
They can not, so they have not.
We have been asking for those figures for 9 months.

The Boro Attorney said in the paper that doing inspections once every 3 years is more economical, we agree, that proves our point further.
They were, for a number of years, charging $100.00 with an inspection every year now they want $300.00 for inspections done every 3 years. Three times the price for two thirds less service.
How dose it cost more to do less?
How can they claim that is reasonability related to the actual cost of the service provided?
They can not, so they have not.

We, and more specifically for this speech/statement, I want only that the U.S. Constitution, that the New Jersey Constitution, that the laws that flow from those documents, and the court opinions that result from those law be followed.
Nothing more nothing less.

[jefffriedman]

I would now like to turn to the 2007 Rental advisory Board recommendations.

1. Inspections –I agree with inspections; I would suggest that we all agree that inspections are necessary for rental properties. The question is should routine inspections take place at night. As I have said above I have lived in a number of apartment complex’s and whenever there was an inspection I received a notice from the landlord notifying me of the day, a range of hours during the day that the inspection took place. In some place if you were not planning to be there the landlord wanted the notice signed and returned, other the notice was enough. Please note I am not talking about enforcement investigations or the number of other valid reason why code or others may need to gain entry, I am strictly discussing the routine systematic inspection.

2. Hire additional staff – This is a budgetary issues and I do not have the information to give comment. I do know that additional staff has been hired. If it can be done within the legal and proper budget of the Code Department that is fine.


3. Tracking methods of complaints and violations - I see this as critical to help address the problems. It is my understanding from the reports we got at the rental advisory board meetings that that system is not working, unfortunately.

4. Review, enforce equally - I agree 100% with this recommendation.


5. Increase fines - I agree with this as well. Increasing fines however is different that increasing fees.

6. Levy fines for all violations - I see no problem with this either.


7. Fine each owner and tenant - I do not have enough information about this recommendation to comment. I do not think, not sure, you can do this for normal code violations but for criminal/ civil charges based on negligence, strict liability, or recklessness if allowed by state law fine.

8. A. Jail time or community serves for landlords who overcrowd - If allowed by State law fine.
B. Post landlord offenders in newspaper - Red Bank does it, seems fine to me but posting all landlords to me is a bit too much.

9. A. Have landlord reimburse tenants who have to move for overcrowding - if the landlord is causing the overcrowding this is and has been a State law for a number of years. If the landlord is not involved the landlord that seems a bit much but I do not know the particulars to comment accordingly.
B. Have landlords reimburse schools for illegally housed children – I have no clue if this is legal or not so I will not comment.

10. Tenant property & causality insurance – I don’t know about this either. I have never been required to get property & causality insurance as a tenant in the past but it is a reasonable discussion to have.

11. Increase fines for repeat offenders; revoke c/o’s, liens for fines - To me this all seems reasonable.

12. Deputize public works employees – I can see a couple of problems with this, the whole “deputize” thing, but if anyone sees a problem with any property, rental or owner occupied, I would think they are allowed to report it.


13. Education seminars for landlord and tenants – I agree with this completely all of them A – E; I also think we need to include owner occupied residents as well so there is a open dialogue.

The final two I will pass on addressing as from my understanding there has been more than enough discussion about them.

[BrianSullivan]

I do fear that this will bring acts of retribution from some; ie. Attempts to strip me of appointed positions............

......I stress this because I was accused a few weeks ago by a councilperson in a public forum, not the council meeting, of “trying to bring this Boro to its knees and destroy it.”


Jeff, both of the above are very distrubing statements. Please keep us updated if you do suffer any retribution. A fellow resident should not have to suffer that for simply stepping up for what they believe.

I will thank you for your post which continues open dialog. It is the right thing for everybody, whether people agree with you or not.

[adefonzo]

Jeff, I read your next to last post, and although I was reminded of my own tendencies to get a bit long winded at times, it was packed full of great information.

Of course, at the end of my reading, I had to laugh. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you to the club of people who present our Governing body with facts and well thought out requests, but get nothing in return. If I were back home, I would show you the secret handshake!! And you were even "man enough" to stand up and make your opinions heard in front of the council. Still nothing though, huh? I'm sure they're going to get to it sooner or later...

I don't know how many times we're going to have to see examples of how our governing body deals with being challenged before people start to open their eyes and realize the true nature of this group. And I say "this group" because I do still believe, contrary to popular opinion, that there are a few people up there who are good, honest, hard working council members, but unfortunately, it's not their voices that are being heard and it's not by their example that the overall body is being led.

[Mike Rosseel]

Jun 23, 2010 12:39:02 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

I would now like to turn to the 2007 Rental advisory Board recommendations.

1. Inspections –I agree with inspections; I would suggest that we all agree that inspections are necessary for rental properties. The question is should routine inspections take place at night. As I have said above I have lived in a number of apartment complex’s and whenever there was an inspection I received a notice from the landlord notifying me of the day, a range of hours during the day that the inspection took place. In some place if you were not planning to be there the landlord wanted the notice signed and returned, other the notice was enough. Please note I am not talking about enforcement investigations or the number of other valid reason why code or others may need to gain entry, I am strictly discussing the routine systematic inspection.

2. Hire additional staff – This is a budgetary issues and I do not have the information to give comment. I do know that additional staff has been hired. If it can be done within the legal and proper budget of the Code Department that is fine.


3. Tracking methods of complaints and violations - I see this as critical to help address the problems. It is my understanding from the reports we got at the rental advisory board meetings that that system is not working, unfortunately.

4. Review, enforce equally - I agree 100% with this recommendation.


5. Increase fines - I agree with this as well. Increasing fines however is different that increasing fees.

6. Levy fines for all violations - I see no problem with this either.


7. Fine each owner and tenant - I do not have enough information about this recommendation to comment. I do not think, not sure, you can do this for normal code violations but for criminal/ civil charges based on negligence, strict liability, or recklessness if allowed by state law fine.

8. A. Jail time or community serves for landlords who overcrowd - If allowed by State law fine.
B. Post landlord offenders in newspaper - Red Bank does it, seems fine to me but posting all landlords to me is a bit too much.

9. A. Have landlord reimburse tenants who have to move for overcrowding - if the landlord is causing the overcrowding this is and has been a State law for a number of years. If the landlord is not involved the landlord that seems a bit much but I do not know the particulars to comment accordingly.
B. Have landlords reimburse schools for illegally housed children – I have no clue if this is legal or not so I will not comment.

10. Tenant property & causality insurance – I don’t know about this either. I have never been required to get property & causality insurance as a tenant in the past but it is a reasonable discussion to have.

11. Increase fines for repeat offenders; revoke c/o’s, liens for fines - To me this all seems reasonable.

12. Deputize public works employees – I can see a couple of problems with this, the whole “deputize” thing, but if anyone sees a problem with any property, rental or owner occupied, I would think they are allowed to report it.


13. Education seminars for landlord and tenants – I agree with this completely all of them A – E; I also think we need to include owner occupied residents as well so there is a open dialogue.

The final two I will pass on addressing as from my understanding there has been more than enough discussion about them.

jeff,

Congrats on the "secret handshake" you must be proud!

Seriously Jeff, hats off to you for standing up for what you believe in, making every single possible attempt to get answers before making a huge, ego driven ordeal, like others. You do deserve to have your ideas heard and responded to in a respectful way. I have heard these complaints from you for along time now and feel you have given alot of time for answers and never received any. You certainly do not have any political agenda, you simply state what you feel works best, hats off to you Mr Friedman!

[jefffriedman]

I like and respect Kevin Coyne and I agree with much that he says in his letter last week. I must however politely take issue with four assertions Kevin has made in his letter and ask where he got the information from to make these assertions because they do not represent the FLANJ’s positions. If they did I would be standing next to Kevin cheering him on in total agreement.

The first, Kevin stated that landlords (“seem to have forgotten these principles {That} property owners are responsible for their property”). The FLANJ agree wholeheartedly that all property owners, rental or owner occupied, are responsible for maintaining their property to the same standards and the FLANJ has said so publicly on many occasions.

The second, Kevin stated (“The system has worked”). Last year based on the “2009 Department Report”; dated 1/12/10 there were on the enforcement side only 11 overcrowding convictions and only a total of $18,850 in fines collected in 2009.
On the systematic inspection side there were 309 inspections completed (equals 5.49 completed inspections a week) at a charge to property owners of residential rental property in registration fees of $219,250.00 which equals, without discounting the small cost for all the rental unit licenses paperwork, $709.54 per inspection completed. It can not cost that much to issue registration/license and do an inspection. I do not believe that those figures represent a properly working system.

The third, Kevin implies that the landlords do not want a registration system (“The landlord registration system should stand”). The FLANJ has no issue with a registrations/license program/system; the FLANJ only ask that the fee for that program/system be reasonably related to the actual costs as required by state law.

The fourth, Kevin’s implication that the FLANJ want the fee rolled back, I assume to nothing, is incorrect. That assumed implication is based on the lines (“Landlords are protesting the annual fee…and threaten to sue if it’s not rolled back”) and (“The landlord registration system should stand”). The FLANJ has no problem with registration/licensing system/program or associated fee; we only ask that the fee charged be reasonability related to the actual cost of the system/program as required by state law.

Yes, there are property owners, landlords, and residents who are criminals and they should be punished accordingly to the fullest extent of the law. Yes, we all do pay taxes and fees for necessary services (“to keep [people] in line”) but no taxpayer should be expected to pay more than three times more than the actual costs of those services. No taxpayer would or should accept a 300% fee increase for a reduction of services by two-thirds.

[BrianSullivan]

Councilman Coyne's letter was in the APP yesterday.....

www.app.com/article/20100624/OPINION04/6250332/Battle-begins-anew-with-absentee-landlords

What caught my attention was the heading to it, which I believe was added by the APP.....

Battle begins anew with absentee landlords

I believe that heading is misleading and not conducive to proper discussions. The main reason being that there is nothing "anew" here. All of what we see is ongoing and will continue to be ongoing. While much work has been done on the rental issues to protect quality of life and safety,
we will never have the luxury of saying that what the town is doing is perfect and not in need of constant review. I believe tha is precisely where the value of the rental board is, to continue reviewing practices in what is working and what is not and to keep all of the rental issues in the public arena where they belong.

Back when that rental board was formed, I made it clear that all parties must be considered and dealt with in a fair and reasonable way- the homeowners, landlords and tenants. We got our clocks cleaned by the tenant advocates, and I did see at that time landlords in other towns suing their towns. If things are done fair, open and honest in this town, we should not have to see this town go down that same direction as other towns.

Many homeowners are not at all happy with the rental community in this town. It has affected many things and not for the better. But the fact remains, the rentals are here, have rights, and have to be treated with respect.

On Monday I am going to write what I believe needs to be done. It might make for a nice new thread where every site participant can have their say as to what needs to be done. No matter what happens, there is nothing " anew," it is all a work in progress and will continue to be.

[admin]

newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2010-07-07/Front_Page/Landlords_council_debate_change_in_law.html

Landlords, council debate change in law

Freehold Borough officials say unannounced inspections are still needed in some cases
BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer
FREEHOLD — Municipal officials have amended a Freehold Borough law which states how much a landlord must pay to register a rental property with the town each year.

Officials amended the Rental Property Regulations and Licensing of Landlords law at the Borough Council meeting on June 28.

Representatives of the Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey spoke against some of the changes.

Voting in favor of the amendment were Councilman George Schnurr, Council President Jaye Sims, Councilwoman Sharon Shutzer, Councilman Kevin Kane and Councilman Michael DiBenedetto.

Councilman John Newman voted no and said that although he approved of most of the amended ordinance, there were some things he wanted to fine tune, including having the borough’s systematic inspections of rental properties scheduled rather than conducted unannounced.

The landlord registration application, when originally adopted in 2003, called for a landlord registration fee of $500 per property in the first year of registration; a $300 registration fee per property for the second year providing there were no violations found in the first year; and a $100 annual registration fee per property thereafter as long as there were no violations uncovered.

In 2009 the initial registration fee for a new landlord went up to $600 (from $500), and then maintained a $300 annual fee from the second year and thereafter as long as the property was free of violations. If violations were found, the registration fee went back to $600 for the next year.

The amendment adopted by the council on June 28 sets a $300 initial registration fee (down from $600) and maintains that amount as the annual fee per property. Landlords will no longer be charged a higher registration fee if their property is found to have violations.

Members of the landlord association said they wanted the annual property registration fee put back to $100, which it was prior to 2009 (following the first two years of a property’s registration).




That $100 annual fee is no longer in place.

Other changes contained in the amendment include moving the systematic inspection of property that was previously done annually to every three years, and removing the name of minors from the landlord registration application. Tenants can now list only the age and gender of people living in a rental unit.

The amendments to the law grew out of recommendations that were made to the council by the borough’s Rental Advisory Board.

During public comment, resident Robert Taylor said his is a fifth generation family in Freehold Borough and he said the rental situation, specifically overcrowded residential units, is worse now than ever.

“Most landlords don’t live here, they don’t really know their tenants and they don’t care about the town,” he said.

Taylor said he believes the rental problem is caused by absentee landlords.

Andy Kiely, who owns multiple rental properties in

the borough, said he moved to the town in 1968 with his parents.

“This town has seen some great changes and on the whole they are wonderful,” Kiely said. “I have invested a lot of money in this town and I disagree with Mr. Taylor. Not all landlords don’t know their tenants.”

Kiely said he is tired of being stereotyped as a “slumlord.”

“We started the Freehold Landlord Association to improve the community and to establish dialogue with town officials,” he said.

Kiely said he reached out to borough officials and did not receive the response he wanted. He said he met with Newman and Kane.

Jeff Friedman and Chris Lopresti, association members, were also present, along with other landlords.

Several tenants expressed their disapproval of nighttime and unannounced home inspections.

Attorney Charles Gormally, representing the Freehold Landlord Association, said, “The real issue here is that the amount of fees collected is wholly disproportionate to the cost of this (property inspection) program. Most communities charge a fraction of what you charge here unless they are seasonal like Belmar, for instance. This is not a seasonal town.”

He asked the council to table the ordinance.

Eileen Mars, of Monroe Township, who owns two rental properties in the borough, said, “We serve a purpose here. We are not all bad guys.”

Resident Ted Miller said he heard the landlords when they said they had invested a lot of money in the community.

“But I have also invested a great deal here,” he said. “My interest is not just money. It’s my boys, their school, our house of worship, and our quality of life. I recognize that some landlords have good intentions, but they should also be sensitive to our council and to our families. Our lives are here, our investment is here.”

Officials resolved to discuss better scheduling for the systematic property inspections, but appeared to agree that unannounced property inspections after a complaint has been received still have a place in the borough.

He said the Rental Advisory Board agrees that better scheduling for the systematic property inspections is worth considering.

Resident Reggie Sims said the landlords are complaining now because they are feeling the financial effect of the borough’s crackdown on poor rental practices. He chided the landlords for not reacting to the problems before it was costing them more money.

“That’s why the council had to do this. They don’t want to do this. Now it’s hitting you in your pockets so now you’re here,” Sims said.

Schnurr said he would not compromise on the complaint-driven unannounced property inspections.

Kane said he believed the rules and regulations for code enforcement were right six years ago when they were put in place and that they remain right now.

DiBenedetto applauded the landlords for investing in Freehold Borough, but also recognized there is a need for monitoring rental properties. As a local firefighter, he said he has seen the need for better monitoring of properties as a result of residential overcrowding.

Shutzer said that after long discussions on the subject, council members could find no way to separate good landlords from the bad ones.

She said she resented the landlords’ claim that council members were not talking about the issue when the landlords acknowledged meeting with Newman and Kane in trying to come to an amicable solution.

Holding up a sign that said “I am a Freehold resident,” Shutzer said she was elected by the people of Freehold Borough, not by landlords, and said she would do her best to protect those residents and their quality of life.

Jaye Sims, the council president, responded to the comments from the landlords by uncharacteristically raising his voice and declaring “Enough, enough.”

He said unscrupulous landlords must be held accountable for their actions. He recalled growing up in a rental property in the borough with an absentee landlord. The memory seemed still fresh as he described how he and his brother had to make repairs in their home because the landlord would not do so.

[admin]

Jun 23, 2010 7:07:27 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

The following letter is from a former and much respected councilman. I do not agree with every point, but this letter is a powerful letter with very good points and important reminders. Though I was a bit critical of the way the FLLA was treated at a meeting, this shows why the governing body must be vigilant. As an aside, I know where this former councilman lives. He is in an area with beautiful homes, many of which have been flipped into run down rentals. I am sure he is reminded on a daily basis of the problems and what a shame the rental community has brought to this town over the past years.

newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2010-06-23/Letters/Landlords_responsible_for_their_property.html

Responses to the above letter:

Landlords asking officials to follow the law

newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2010-07-07/Letters/Landlords_asking_officials_to_follow_the_law.html



Fees should be based on cost of services

newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2010-07-07/Letters/Fees_should_be_based_on_cost_of_services.html