BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 10, 2010 15:56:55 GMT -5
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 10, 2010 16:08:43 GMT -5
I probably should'nt call this breaking news. I have been paying very close attention to the issues and situation for months and I cannot say that I am surprised. I do believe it is all very avoidable.
I am no fan of landlords and rentals in this town. They have decimated entire neighborhoods, and even in the case of good rentals, I still think this town would be better with owner occupied homes. That is not the reality we face. The landlords are here and I have always said that the rental regulations have got to be fair and take all sides into account. That belief is for the purpose of avoiding a law suit like this.
I see in the article above, the Mayor is talking tough. I know his heart is in the right place, but after seeing what happened with past suits, I have to worry. I do hope the town has a good and solid defense.
We saw the mayor and council talk tough in the past in reference to the muster zone suit. During that suit the governing body was in over its head and had no idea what they were dealing with. That cost this town greatly and we are in far worse shape as the result of it. Lets hope this is not a repeat, we cannot afford another loss like that. It could easily turn into the final nail in the coffin for this town which is still struggling with many issues.
Like I said, I know the mayors heart is in the right place, but I hope his head is.
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 10, 2010 16:46:22 GMT -5
Here is the full press release that the FLLA sent out to the papers
The Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey has sought, since it’s formation in October 2009, a constructive dialogue with the Mayor and Council of Freehold Borough to address the concerns that all Freehold Borough residents have and concerns regarding the continued violations of tenants and property owners’ constitutional rights by the Borough.
To that end the FLANJ has made every effort to work with the Borough to address these issues by attending every Rental Advisory Committee meeting, as well as meetings with all of the non-elected Borough Officials who are involved with the regulation and oversight of rental property in the Borough.
We have attended most of the Borough Council meetings this year, and we have requested on numerous occasions to have meeting either individually or with Council as a whole. Our efforts have been rebuffed and ridiculed by the Mayor and Council and they have refused to meet with us.
By continuing to violate the Constitutional Rights of both tenants and property owners through the passage of the most recent incarnation of Rental property regulations and by their failure to enter into a constructive dialogue with over a quarter of the Borough’s property owners, the Mayor and Council have chosen conflict over cooperation and have exposed all taxpayers to financial harm by their failure to follow the law.
The Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey is saddened that the Mayor and Council have chosen to have these matters resolved in a Monmouth County courtroom instead of a Freehold Borough conference room.
|
|
|
|
Post by colleen on Aug 10, 2010 18:01:40 GMT -5
Hey Brian,
I appreciate you linking to the original story, but I've got to say, it's hard to see my entire story copy & pasted here. It's lot of work and a lot of reporting to get a story like that, and it's hard to see that work lifted so completely and immediately.
I obviously support the link culture-- I often excerpt and link to stories of competing publications-- but I try to ensure that readers will have to follow the link to the original site for the full story out of respect to the author who wrote it and the publication paying them.
Like I said, I appreciate your including the link here, and all of the other times you link to our stories at FinJ and APP. It's just hard to watch a hard-fought story get lifted so quickly.
Thanks,
Colleen
Colleen Curry
Editor
Freehold InJersey
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 11, 2010 15:42:58 GMT -5
Hey Brian, I appreciate you linking to the original story, but I've got to say, it's hard to see my entire story copy & pasted here. It's lot of work and a lot of reporting to get a story like that, and it's hard to see that work lifted so completely and immediately. I obviously support the link culture-- I often excerpt and link to stories of competing publications-- but I try to ensure that readers will have to follow the link to the original site for the full story out of respect to the author who wrote it and the publication paying them. Like I said, I appreciate your including the link here, and all of the other times you link to our stories at FinJ and APP. It's just hard to watch a hard-fought story get lifted so quickly. Thanks, Colleen Colleen Curry Editor Freehold InJersey Admin has been in lots of hot water lately, Time for a vacation. Anyone want to take over? Anyway, Colleen, As soon as I saw your post here I immediately modified it so that people have to go to your site and read your work. I completely understand your concern and am happy to abide by your wishes. This is an important issue and could have some very bad consequences on the town, I was over zealous in posting it. In the future I will just post links to your site. Colleen, since you have opened an account here, feel free to post more in the future. If you wish to post links to your side, you would be very welcome. This is an open community site and you and your pages have certainly become a very nice part of our town. Brian |
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Aug 11, 2010 18:17:41 GMT -5
Brian-admin, honest mistakes are honest mistakes. We all make them. Do not chastise yourself. Now you know about a certain procedure that you did not know before, it's as simple as that.
Yes, Colleen is an admirable editor/leader of a new media for Freehold, and I for one, am so pleased with FinJ, as it affords me the abiliity to work with her and Jackie for stories that are not considered "hard news," but are more feature-oriented, to spotlight the unique colors, character and happenings here.
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 12, 2010 4:59:29 GMT -5
Brian-admin, honest mistakes are honest mistakes. We all make them. Do not chastise yourself. Now you know about a certain procedure that you did not know before, it's as simple as that. Yes, Colleen is an admirable editor/leader of a new media for Freehold, and I for one, am so pleased with FinJ, as it affords me the ability to work with her and Jackie for stories that are not considered "hard news," but are more feature-oriented, to spotlight the unique colors, character and happenings here. I take my lumps with my head held high. It keeps me humbled and honest. I do agree with you, Colleen is doing a terrific job and I certainly do not want to burn bridges. As far as I am concerned, the people of Freehold are all in this together. |
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 16, 2010 5:15:19 GMT -5
www.app.com/article/20100813/OPINION01/8140301/Keep-courts-out-of-itKeep courts out of itOnce again, needless litigation has trumped negotiation at taxpayers' expense. In Freehold Borough, a group of landlords has gone to court attempting to block what it says are excessive licensing and regulation fees that are set to take effect next week. The landlords contend Freehold is raising the fees to line its own coffers. The borough maintains something had to be done to keep up with the landlords neglecting their properties and turning a blind eye to overcrowding in their units. Mayor Mike Wilson insists the fees are necessary to cover the cost of the inspection program. If the case continues in the courts, the decision will likely turn on whether the fees are reasonable. Rather than having the matter decided there, the borough should sit down face to face with the landlords and justify the need. The Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey, whose members represent about 400 properties, filed a lawsuit in state Superior Court Tuesday seeking an immediate injunction against changes to the licensing, registration and inspection regulations the Borough Council adopted in June. The fees, enacted in 2003, were initially set at $500 per landlord for the first year of registration. If the landlord had no code violations, they were reduced to $300 for the second year and $100 for every subsequent violation-free year. The Freehold council doubled the fees in 2009. Then in June, the council set the fees at a flat $300 fee per unit per year, regardless of whether there were violations. The landlords should withdraw the lawsuit and the borough should declare a moratorium on the most recent fee increase. Then, the two sides should sit down and review the numbers. Out of court, rather than in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 16, 2010 13:27:23 GMT -5
www.app.com/article/20100813/OPINION01/8140301/Keep-courts-out-of-itKeep courts out of itOnce again, needless litigation has trumped negotiation at taxpayers' expense. In Freehold Borough, a group of landlords has gone to court attempting to block what it says are excessive licensing and regulation fees that are set to take effect next week. The landlords contend Freehold is raising the fees to line its own coffers. The borough maintains something had to be done to keep up with the landlords neglecting their properties and turning a blind eye to overcrowding in their units. Mayor Mike Wilson insists the fees are necessary to cover the cost of the inspection program. If the case continues in the courts, the decision will likely turn on whether the fees are reasonable. Rather than having the matter decided there, the borough should sit down face to face with the landlords and justify the need. The Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey, whose members represent about 400 properties, filed a lawsuit in state Superior Court Tuesday seeking an immediate injunction against changes to the licensing, registration and inspection regulations the Borough Council adopted in June. The fees, enacted in 2003, were initially set at $500 per landlord for the first year of registration. If the landlord had no code violations, they were reduced to $300 for the second year and $100 for every subsequent violation-free year. The Freehold council doubled the fees in 2009. Then in June, the council set the fees at a flat $300 fee per unit per year, regardless of whether there were violations. The landlords should withdraw the lawsuit and the borough should declare a moratorium on the most recent fee increase. Then, the two sides should sit down and review the numbers. Out of court, rather than in it. The old fee structure clearly is NOT related to the administrative cost of enforcement. The fee is tied to violations, which makes plain that the fee is an adjudication of a penalty. IMO The new flat fee structure may or may not be tied to enforcement. That is a question of fact. I suspect the Borough will be able to demonstrate a high cost related to enforcement, assuming the allocation of such costs are per se reasonable. This is a simple calculus really. If the suit is covered by the Borough's insurer, they have little reason to settle and talk. The overall cost of the suit, even if divided by the total number of members, could easily rise to the cost of the flat fee for one year. In essence, this is an all or nothing pursuit. The Landlords can reap a savings overtime by paying for and winning the litigation upfront. (Of course, the Borough will be unhappy, and the landlords can expect to "pay in the long run.") If the Landlords lose, they hike the rents, cover costs, and move on. I haven't seen the suit -- but I would sure like to read it. One thing is for sure -- when Mayor Wilson jumps out and speaks aggressively about litigation posture -- it seems to be bad for the Borough. But hey -- "Bring it on" is his motto. The matter should have been resolved short of a lawsuit, and while it is hard to apportion blame without knowing any of the facts -- entrenched government is not usually flexible. Moreover, the Council likely sees some strong political points to score in standing up to Landlords. (Not that these folks EVER consider politics in these things. That's for other towns.) |
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 17, 2010 7:37:52 GMT -5
www.app.com/article/20100813/OPINION01/8140301/Keep-courts-out-of-itKeep courts out of itOnce again, needless litigation has trumped negotiation at taxpayers' expense. In Freehold Borough, a group of landlords has gone to court attempting to block what it says are excessive licensing and regulation fees that are set to take effect next week. The landlords contend Freehold is raising the fees to line its own coffers. The borough maintains something had to be done to keep up with the landlords neglecting their properties and turning a blind eye to overcrowding in their units. Mayor Mike Wilson insists the fees are necessary to cover the cost of the inspection program. If the case continues in the courts, the decision will likely turn on whether the fees are reasonable. Rather than having the matter decided there, the borough should sit down face to face with the landlords and justify the need. The Freehold Landlord Association of New Jersey, whose members represent about 400 properties, filed a lawsuit in state Superior Court Tuesday seeking an immediate injunction against changes to the licensing, registration and inspection regulations the Borough Council adopted in June. The fees, enacted in 2003, were initially set at $500 per landlord for the first year of registration. If the landlord had no code violations, they were reduced to $300 for the second year and $100 for every subsequent violation-free year. The Freehold council doubled the fees in 2009. Then in June, the council set the fees at a flat $300 fee per unit per year, regardless of whether there were violations. The landlords should withdraw the lawsuit and the borough should declare a moratorium on the most recent fee increase. Then, the two sides should sit down and review the numbers. Out of court, rather than in it. The old fee structure clearly is NOT related to the administrative cost of enforcement. The fee is tied to violations, which makes plain that the fee is an adjudication of a penalty. IMO The new flat fee structure may or may not be tied to enforcement. That is a question of fact. I suspect the Borough will be able to demonstrate a high cost related to enforcement, assuming the allocation of such costs are per se reasonable. This is a simple calculus really. If the suit is covered by the Borough's insurer, they have little reason to settle and talk. The overall cost of the suit, even if divided by the total number of members, could easily rise to the cost of the flat fee for one year. In essence, this is an all or nothing pursuit. The Landlords can reap a savings overtime by paying for and winning the litigation upfront. (Of course, the Borough will be unhappy, and the landlords can expect to "pay in the long run.") If the Landlords lose, they hike the rents, cover costs, and move on. I haven't seen the suit -- but I would sure like to read it. One thing is for sure -- when Mayor Wilson jumps out and speaks aggressively about litigation posture -- it seems to be bad for the Borough. But hey -- "Bring it on" is his motto. The matter should have been resolved short of a lawsuit, and while it is hard to apportion blame without knowing any of the facts -- entrenched government is not usually flexible. Moreover, the Council likely sees some strong political points to score in standing up to Landlords. (Not that these folks EVER consider politics in these things. That's for other towns.) This whole thing will be interesting to watch. It is hard for anybody to sympathize with the landlord community, but it wouldn't be a surprise if they win. One thing the APP neglects to mention is that the inspections have also been changed to once every three years instead of annually. That means that at 300 dollars per year, the landlords are paying $900 dollars per building per inspection. If I were a landlord, I would not be real accepting of that either. It looks like a money grab and nothing else. The one very big and very important missing factor in all of this is the defense from borough hall. They have been tight lipped so we will have to see what their game plan is. I believe tomorrow, Wednesday, both sides appear in court. As far as the mayor and his bring it on mentality, it is understandable. He, as well as all of us, know that rentals are a problem in this town. The last thing he needs or wants is to look soft. That said, we have seen the tough talk before and it was only talk. He talked real tough about the muster zone issues, but has buckled under to the outside interests- even when he didn't have to. To this day, I believe he continues to do so for no good end in our town. The mayors tough talk has got this town in lots of trouble due to the fact that it wasn't backed up. Lets hope we do not have a repeat. Like I said before, I believe his heart is in the right place, but based on past history, I do have to question if his head is. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 17, 2010 11:58:36 GMT -5
The old fee structure clearly is NOT related to the administrative cost of enforcement. The fee is tied to violations, which makes plain that the fee is an adjudication of a penalty. IMO The new flat fee structure may or may not be tied to enforcement. That is a question of fact. I suspect the Borough will be able to demonstrate a high cost related to enforcement, assuming the allocation of such costs are per se reasonable. This is a simple calculus really. If the suit is covered by the Borough's insurer, they have little reason to settle and talk. The overall cost of the suit, even if divided by the total number of members, could easily rise to the cost of the flat fee for one year. In essence, this is an all or nothing pursuit. The Landlords can reap a savings overtime by paying for and winning the litigation upfront. (Of course, the Borough will be unhappy, and the landlords can expect to "pay in the long run.") If the Landlords lose, they hike the rents, cover costs, and move on. I haven't seen the suit -- but I would sure like to read it. One thing is for sure -- when Mayor Wilson jumps out and speaks aggressively about litigation posture -- it seems to be bad for the Borough. But hey -- "Bring it on" is his motto. The matter should have been resolved short of a lawsuit, and while it is hard to apportion blame without knowing any of the facts -- entrenched government is not usually flexible. Moreover, the Council likely sees some strong political points to score in standing up to Landlords. (Not that these folks EVER consider politics in these things. That's for other towns.) This whole thing will be interesting to watch. It is hard for anybody to sympathize with the landlord community, but it wouldn't be a surprise if they win. One thing the APP neglects to mention is that the inspections have also been changed to once every three years instead of annually. That means that at 300 dollars per year, the landlords are paying $900 dollars per building per inspection. If I were a landlord, I would not be real accepting of that either. It looks like a money grab and nothing else. The one very big and very important missing factor in all of this is the defense from borough hall. They have been tight lipped so we will have to see what their game plan is. I believe tomorrow, Wednesday, both sides appear in court. As far as the mayor and his bring it on mentality, it is understandable. He, as well as all of us, know that rentals are a problem in this town. The last thing he needs or wants is to look soft. That said, we have seen the tough talk before and it was only talk. He talked real tough about the muster zone issues, but has buckled under to the outside interests- even when he didn't have to. To this day, I believe he continues to do so for no good end in our town. The mayors tough talk has got this town in lots of trouble due to the fact that it wasn't backed up. Lets hope we do not have a repeat. Like I said before, I believe his heart is in the right place, but based on past history, I do have to question if his head is. This is an interesting matter. Trying to analyze it coldly without all the facts is hard. (the legal issue) To me, the Landlords clearly feel they have a case. Going for injunctive relief is a high hurdle -- VERY HIGH. I have to read the complaint to see how they reach the irreparable harm burden. (At the end of the day, money damages does not an injunction make -- though they could still win the case) Going for the injunction is risky, because if they lose, the momentum politically shifts to the Borough -- who has popular support on its side. (it appears that is all they have) My guess is any attempt to allocate cost to this fee structure was done post implementation. Moreover, the smell of filling any budget shortfall will add stink to this. In addition, the allocation of costs to this service is a defined factual undertaking, and I suspect the Court will not be overly liberal in allowing the Borough to do a post fee analysis that looks like it is cramming costs to justify the fee. If the Borough loses at the injunction stage, it would be a disaster. if a Court comes out and calls the Landlords right, they will have lost any political momentum. This will be another record of Mayor Wilson getting taken to the woodshed in a legal proceeding after talking tough. Hopefully, they have done their work. To me, not resolving this matter before litigation was foolish, and the product of either bad counsel or an obvious lack of understanding of the relative legal positions. By making this political now, the suit doesn't drive the parties to the table -- it looks instead like the Borough is digging in. I am not saying they can't win -- but I have a feeling they are ill-prepared. editOkay -- now I am feeling a bit more informed about this legal matter. I was wondering how the landlords intended to meet the burden on an injunction. They have a Constitutional claim, and the law in NJ looks pretty good and on-point regarding the issue they raise. (I didn't read the case or look for alternative law, but on its face it is pretty strong.) The Constitutional claim would certainly permit a Court to issue the injunction. The argument is a dead-lock winner, but it is solid. I am less confident about there overall argument on the fees, as the standard is a bit different than what has been represented in casual discussion. The standard is that the fees must not be unreasonably related to the actual costs of inspection. What is unreasonable is in the eye of the beholder. Previously, I thought we were looking at a standard that said the fees must only be for the actual costs of the inspection. The difference is subtle, but noteworthy as a legal point. Making a decision on the "unreasonableness" of the fees is a fact intensive endeavor. Without seeing evidence on how the fees were allocated, it is hard to be sure that one can find them "unreasonable." The case is quite interesting -- legally speaking. Politically, it's a real hot-button. I look forward to seeing the Borough's response. |
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 18, 2010 11:07:14 GMT -5
Tid bits of info are coming out of the hearing from today.
Both sides are claiming victory, but here is what I have. Judge Lawson was absent and in his place was Judge Cavanaugh. There was a closed door meeting that lasted over one and a half hours. The judge has opted to act as mediator instead of having a trial.
The borough will collect the new landlord fees on schedule, but there will be a hearing on the fees whereas the borough will have to show that the fees are reasonable.
Allegedly, the judge also struck out several aspects of borough ordinance that he considered unconstitutional. Gone is vicarious liability, which the FLLA wanted addressed. The borough can no longer hold landlords responsible for the actions of tenants.
Also, only the person signing the lease will have their name on the lease. The borough can no longer require that the name of every occupant be on the lease.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Aug 18, 2010 11:56:39 GMT -5
I'm curious as to who is feeding you this information? How accurate is it?
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 18, 2010 12:20:11 GMT -5
Lisa, my source is a credible John Doe. I am still awaiting word from more sources in order to get the best info and perspectives. This post was just a start and we will also have he papers to look forward to.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 18, 2010 13:48:10 GMT -5
Tid bits of info are coming out of the hearing from today. Both sides are claiming victory, but here is what I have. Judge Lawson was absent and in his place was Judge Cavanaugh. There was a closed door meeting that lasted over one and a half hours. The judge has opted to act as mediator instead of having a trial. The borough will collect the new landlord fees on schedule, but there will be a hearing on the fees whereas the borough will have to show that the fees are reasonable. Allegedly, the judge also struck out several aspects of borough ordinance that he considered unconstitutional. Gone is vicarious liability, which the FLLA wanted addressed. The borough can no longer hold landlords responsible for the actions of tenants. Also, only the person signing the lease will have their name on the lease. The borough can no longer require that the name of every occupant be on the lease. Based solely on this information, that sounds like a big win for the Landlords. Again, based on the facts as you have put out. It sounds like the Court ruled on the Constitutional issues raised by Plaintiffs. Per my reading of the brief, the law looks good there for them. It seems like the judge did something that is quite common. He made a ruling on issues of law, and is now offering the parties an opportunity to mediate and settle before a more expensive factual trial on the cost issue. This gives the Borough a chance to try to find a "settlement" and spin this loss into something less stinging. It is common for a judge hearing a matter to refer the parties to a different judge for mediation. The hearing judge does not want to be involved in settlement discussions and the parties don't want settlement facts creeping into a sitting judge's view should the matter go to trial. Hopefully, we will hear more concrete news. Plaintiffs' briefs were pretty strong based on NJ law on the issue of Constitutionality and privacy. |
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Aug 18, 2010 14:29:37 GMT -5
Huh. I just got off the wire/phone/skype/Scottie beam with my own personal John Doe. He/She/It said that the judge absolutely did NOT declare any part of this ordinance as unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 18, 2010 14:46:21 GMT -5
Huh. I just got off the wire/phone/skype/Scottie beam with my own personal John Doe. He/She/It said that the judge absolutely did NOT declare any part of this ordinance as unconstitutional. You guys and your sources! You power brokers. Someone tell me what really happened -- so I can tell you if I am right or not. LOL |
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 18, 2010 15:34:56 GMT -5
More info is coming in. Tomorrow I will put up a better post with info that is a bit more clear.
We will get the whole story as I continue to get the most accurate info possible.
Some of the language in my first post does need to be cleared up.
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 19, 2010 8:47:03 GMT -5
Like I said, I am back with more info. Most of what I wrote was true, but with inapporpriate wording. Tid bits of info are coming out of the hearing from today. Both sides are claiming victory, but here is what I have. Judge Lawson was absent and in his place was Judge Cavanaugh. There was a closed door meeting that lasted over one and a half hours. The judge has opted to act as mediator instead of having a trial. I believe most of the above is true. Tid bits of info are coming out of the hearing from today.The borough will collect the new landlord fees on schedule, but there will be a hearing on the fees whereas the borough will have to show that the fees are reasonable. The above is true too. The money is also not being placed into escrow. .Allegedly, the judge also struck out several aspects of borough ordinance that he considered unconstitutional. Gone is vicarious liability, which the FLLA wanted addressed. The borough can no longer hold landlords responsible for the actions of tenants. The use of the word unconstitutional is inaccurate at this time. That is a FFLA claim. The borough did agree to remove certain parts of the ordiance. The issues surrounding vicarious liability are hazey at this time. I do not believe that was actually dealt with yesterday. Also, only the person signing the lease will have their name on the lease. The borough can no longer require that the name of every occupant be on the lease. Poor choice of words on my part, due to haste yesterday. The only person who will be on the landlord registration form is the person signing the lease. What occurred yesterday was a consent order that both parties agreed to while the various matters are pending. Nothing is concrete or set in stone at this time, as I understand it. |
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 19, 2010 8:54:36 GMT -5
I have to add this, some great (sarcasm) quotes from the mayor newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2010-08-18/Front_Page/Landlords_sue_Freehold_over_fees.html(snipped) Asked to respond to the FLANJ’s claim that the borough’s ordinance is unconsitutional, Mayor Michael Wilson said that assertion was “balderdash and poppycock.” “They (the landlords) brought it on by their own conduct. This is business to them. To us, it’s our neighborhoods. We have different views on these issues,” the mayor said. “Our fees cover our costs. We don’t think they are unconstitutional. And what we are doing here is not unconstitutional,” Wilson said. “In fact, our program was approved by a retired New Jersey Supreme Court justice, the late Daniel O’Hern, when he acted as a mediator” in another matter. “I would think Justice O’Hern has a lot more credibility than the attorney in this case and these landlords he is representing,” Wilson said, adding that absentee landlords have almost ruined Freehold over the last 30 years. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 19, 2010 9:10:08 GMT -5
Like I said, I am back with more info. Most of what I wrote was true, but with inapporpriate wording. Tid bits of info are coming out of the hearing from today. Both sides are claiming victory, but here is what I have. Judge Lawson was absent and in his place was Judge Cavanaugh. There was a closed door meeting that lasted over one and a half hours. The judge has opted to act as mediator instead of having a trial. I believe most of the above is true. The above is true too. The money is also not being placed into escrow. The use of the word unconstitutional is inaccurate at this time. That is a FFLA claim. The borough did agree to remove certain parts of the ordiance. The issues surrounding vicarious liability are hazey at this time. I do not believe that was actually dealt with yesterday. Also, only the person signing the lease will have their name on the lease. The borough can no longer require that the name of every occupant be on the lease. Poor choice of words on my part, due to haste yesterday. The only person who will be on the landlord registration form is the person signing the lease. What occurred yesterday was a consent order that both parties agreed to while the various matters are pending. Nothing is concrete or set in stone at this time, as I understand it. The consent order is the key. It sounds like the judge tipped his hand -- as they often due in mediation. This drives the parties to consider there relative position under the law. (Likewise, getting a legal opinion and seeing the law from the other side can also wake-up a litigant.) If the Parties signed a consent Order -- it is an Order of the Court. While a party may take solace that a Court has not "ruled" against it on an issue. If that party concedes on an issue, and reduces it to an Order -- they have lost the issue. The only difference is in the spin. In this case, the Borough will certainly want to spin the matter to say that through mediation they have "reached agreement" on some issues. That's fine politically. However, when a party sues you and says you have done something wrong and that your statute is unenforceable -- and you then agree to an order of the court to remove some of those provisions -- well -- you have lost. And, you have only made that agreement under duress of having it imposed upon you by a Court. That being an agreement you were unwilling to make before the suit, and publicly ridiculed. So -- to the extent the Borough did enter a Consent Order that removes and alters any provision of the statute -- it has conceded the legality of the issue -- plain and simple. This is even more so since the change comes not as part of a global settlement. Thus, the Borough can't say it gave this and got that. The litigation still remains on the fee issue -- barring a complete settlement. Moreover, the Borough could be looking down the barrel of an additional suit for prior fees. In fact, they should tread quite carefully in this action and be sure to include a global settlement on all claims should they resolve the fee registration issue. Again, without seeing the actual consent order -- all of this remains supposition, and is based only on the "facts" as presented here. After reading the Mayor's quotes this week in the Transcript, I would think entering a consent order admitting the ordinance must be changed and striking provisions of it would be a devastating rebuke of his political hubris. Thus, I really would like to see the consent order to know what actually transpired. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Aug 19, 2010 16:32:47 GMT -5
@rich Kelsey
I must compliment you. Weeding through the facts on this issue has been very tough but your law knowledge helps shed light on a very grey issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 20, 2010 10:48:28 GMT -5
@rich Kelsey I must compliment you. Weeding through the facts on this issue has been very tough but your law knowledge helps shed light on a very grey issue. Thanks Mike! What frustrates me is not being there to see what really happened or to have in my hands any consent order or agreement. That would help me tell the real story. When I practiced, I never liked to send even my best associates or great partners to hear a judge's ruling or his take on a case. So much is lost in translation -- including sizing up from his or her language, tone, and manner what he or she really thinks of a case. Here -- we are stuck analyzing the effects of what might have taken place. Time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 24, 2010 9:05:33 GMT -5
I have compared the consent order to the ordinance.
First, I thought the consent order was amazing because while it stays the enforcement of certain provisions of the ordinance, the order itself is temporary. That is, as I read the Consent Order, the Borough has not necessary conceded the legality of any provision -- and certainly has not conceded that point permanently.
In that respect, I think the Order is unique.
Now -- I expect the Borough will concede on those legal issues as it works with the mediator to avoid trial on the licensing issue. I can't see the Borough wanting to open its books, its practices, and its people to deposition and discovery on the issue of allocating costs to the fees. It is probably of much greater benefit to merely find a workable common ground and avoid unnecessary discover and possible issues.
My guess is the entire matter will settle with a global settlement on this specific fee issue and the main components of the ordinance that the association opposes. Having said that, the Association holds a strong trump card -- because I suspect that can go after the prior fee structure in another suit. To avoid that, the Borough will need to be willing to give in a great deal to the association -- or risk a fight to the finish that could be costly politically, and economically.
Right now -- as I see it -- the Landlords are holding all the cards in this litigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by cgormally on Sept 3, 2010 13:19:40 GMT -5
I am the attorney representing the Freehold Landlords association. There have been a number of very perceptive and accurate posts on this forum. However, some of the public commentary by those that should know better has been flat out wrong.
First, while the FLA did file suit, it did so after months of attempts to convince the Boro that their ordinance was invalid for a whole host of reasons. The Boro listened to our issues, and ignored the solutions that we provided that would have protected the Boro, its residents and its business owners--like the landlords. Instead, they moved ahead and adopted an "amended Ordinance" which is nothing more than an entire new ordinance without even telling us they were doing that!
When the Council was considering its adoption, I appeared before the council and let them know their amended ordinance was defective (although perhaps in different ways than the old ordinance) and asked that they delay or table the ordinance. They did not and went ahead and adopted a defective ordinance.
After filing the lawsuit, it was apparent to everyone participating in the case that the ordinance was defective. That is why the Boro consented to a Temporary Injunction barring their implementation of sections of the ordinance.
The Freehold Landlords are responsible business owners and taxpayers in the Boro. They want to resolve their differences with the Boro with the least expense and and quickly as possible. That is why we agreed to participate in a mediation process prior to continuing the lawsuit. There is plenty left to fix in the ordinance.
For instance, our research has disclosed that the Boro has collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from Landlords based on the number of buildings they own even though the ordinance did not permit this. New Jersey State Regulations under the Department of Community affairs mandate that the Boro can only charge fees that represent the cost of the program involved. The landlord registration program (which is basically the landlord filing a piece of paper with the Boro) simply does not cost the amount collected by the Boro. While we appreciate that the Boro is just trying to raise revenue, there are rules that they should abide by.
In addition, the Boro has established rules that only apply to people who rent their property out. They require multiple inspections even though the state already inspects many of these properties for the same issues. This is wasteful of taxpayer money and unfairly penalizes the landlords. It also translates to higher costs that must be passed onto tenants which in this economic environment is not fair to them either.
We look forward to resolving these issues with the Boro in a professional and efficient manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Sept 3, 2010 14:50:24 GMT -5
I am simply wondering if it is appropriate and ethical for an attorney whose case is now in litigation, to post on a public board. I wonder how the judge hearing this case will feel about this?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 3, 2010 15:53:45 GMT -5
I am the attorney representing the Freehold Landlords association. There have been a number of very perceptive and accurate posts on this forum. However, some of the public commentary by those that should know better has been flat out wrong. First, while the FLA did file suit, it did so after months of attempts to convince the Boro that their ordinance was invalid for a whole host of reasons. The Boro listened to our issues, and ignored the solutions that we provided that would have protected the Boro, its residents and its business owners--like the landlords. Instead, they moved ahead and adopted an "amended Ordinance" which is nothing more than an entire new ordinance without even telling us they were doing that! When the Council was considering its adoption, I appeared before the council and let them know their amended ordinance was defective (although perhaps in different ways than the old ordinance) and asked that they delay or table the ordinance. They did not and went ahead and adopted a defective ordinance. After filing the lawsuit, it was apparent to everyone participating in the case that the ordinance was defective. That is why the Boro consented to a Temporary Injunction barring their implementation of sections of the ordinance. The Freehold Landlords are responsible business owners and taxpayers in the Boro. They want to resolve their differences with the Boro with the least expense and and quickly as possible. That is why we agreed to participate in a mediation process prior to continuing the lawsuit. There is plenty left to fix in the ordinance. For instance, our research has disclosed that the Boro has collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from Landlords based on the number of buildings they own even though the ordinance did not permit this. New Jersey State Regulations under the Department of Community affairs mandate that the Boro can only charge fees that represent the cost of the program involved. The landlord registration program (which is basically the landlord filing a piece of paper with the Boro) simply does not cost the amount collected by the Boro. While we appreciate that the Boro is just trying to raise revenue, there are rules that they should abide by. In addition, the Boro has established rules that only apply to people who rent their property out. They require multiple inspections even though the state already inspects many of these properties for the same issues. This is wasteful of taxpayer money and unfairly penalizes the landlords. It also translates to higher costs that must be passed onto tenants which in this economic environment is not fair to them either. We look forward to resolving these issues with the Boro in a professional and efficient manner. Mr Gormally, I am pleasantly surprised to see your participation here and it is very welcome. Our goals here are to try and get the best possible facts and to give all people a place to voice their opinions. I say we try to get the best possible info because as you can see, I flubbed a couple of posts on this thread. It happens and is all the more reason why it is appreciated when people reach out with better or correct information We have several threads covering the FLLA and the surrounding issues. The one side we are seriously lacking is that of borough hall, but time will tell. Open honest dialog is what we believe in here on this site. Any time you wish to help out with that, feel free. Brian |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Sept 3, 2010 15:58:01 GMT -5
I am simply wondering if it is appropriate and ethical for an attorney whose case is now in litigation, to post on a public board. I wonder how the judge hearing this case will feel about this? Different jurisdictions have different ethical rules governing this matter. I don't profess to know NJ's specific rules. To my knowledge there is no gag order on the case. Moreover, Counsel appears to be discussing information that is totally in the public view. I think counsel is also cognizant of the reputational issue of his client, and is giving a broader description of the facts leading into the suit -- which is smart PR. I appreciate his view and participation. He has many more hours on this issue than me -- that is for sure. I have read the cases in his initial brief, and I am not sure I agree with the narrow rule he states with respect to the relationship between the fee and the costs. The cases say that the fee must not be "unreasonable." That is a different view than saying that the cost must solely be related to the ministerial act of filing. Again, however, I did no independent research. Nor am I suggesting counsel debate the issue with me. What is unreasonable will be a factual inquiry and a court would have to look at the facts of this case compared to any prior cases -- and decided if costs are unreasonable based on allocations or the like. The case is an interesting legal matter. I can't imagine the Borough sees any political profit in having its allocations of personnel time, and its books ripped open and fully investigated in discovery on this issue. Thank you for your post Mr. Gormally. |
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Sept 3, 2010 16:22:02 GMT -5
You can spin this any which way you want, but I maintain I find it somewhat unethical -- and odd -- that this post just appears out of nowhere and that is what I am questioning. Not the facts in the case, which I don't understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Sept 3, 2010 16:30:16 GMT -5
You can spin this any which way you want, but I maintain I find it somewhat unethical -- and odd -- that this post just appears out of nowhere and that is what I am questioning. Not the facts in the case, which I don't understand. You seem a bit feisty today Lisa? I don't think I was spinning in any way. The ethical rules are what they are -- and I suppose Mr. Gormally understands his obligations better than I do -- and, no disrespect to you of course -- but better than you. I don't think for one minute that his post is meant to do anything other than put the background in the light most favorable to his client. I would not imagine he would do otherwise. if he were on here discussing the nature and substance of ongoing conversations or negotiations over issues, that would be an entirely different matter. I don't see anything that prevents a lawyer from coming out and saying hey, my guys tried to work with them. They didn't listen, they didn't follow the law as we see it, and we had to do this. In that respect, I did not find it unusual. The Borough does its messaging through the papers and other sources, he apparently elected to use social media as one avenue for his messaging. From our Board's perspective, we are happy to have it -- and he seems well within our guidelines. Spinmeister K (I gave myself a cool nickname for this thread) |
|
