"It's not only about the value of property, it's about the value of people who live there."
--Oscar Turk, Director of Inspections
A longstanding clash between those who favor strict regulation of the city's housing stock and those who want a more laissez-faire approach emerged again this week when Councilman Rashid Burney said, "I am suggesting we completely do away with the Certificate of Compliance ," and Inspections Director Oscar Turk testified passionately on the need for city oversight.
The city has already seen the repeal of the Safe Housing ordinance, which was intended to prevent overcrowding. Residents regularly come to the public microphone at City Council meetings to talk about houses where the number of cars outside indicate a lot more occupants than the two or three families allowed. As a reporter, I saw instances where a fire revealed that a home had not only a mom, dad and kids, but also a lot of other relatives bunking in. I also saw fire scenes where the illegal use of attic or basement space led to deaths.
For some background, see this 2005 Plaintalker post.
The special Safe Housing Inspections unit has long since been disbanded. The late Jocelyn Pringley won support in 1995 for the Certificate of Compliance program, which is now under fire by Burney. Turk's point at Monday's meeting was that external house inspections ordered by prospective home buyers do not address the actual living conditions inside the home. Must a tenant put up with dangerous electrical flaws, bad plumbing, faulty radiators? Should a buyer find out only after the sale that chronic leaks exist?
I would recommend to any prospective buyer that a peek inside the Inspections folder for the property be taken before purchase. Get an Open Public Records Act from from the City Clerk and then take it to Inspections on the third floor of City Hall and ask to see the folder. There was once a property on my block where a resident who tried to take a bath was subject to possible electrocution due to a combination of bad plumbing and electrical connections, as described in the folder for that property.
A lot of the property code violations in Plainfield are due to half-measures by previous owners or landlords who hire unqualified people to address plumbing, electrical or structural work. Under a past landlord, much work was done by those willing workers whose hiring hall is a downtown street corner, not a union venue for licensed tradespeople.
Although the Certificate of Compliance program is flawed in that either the buyer or seller must voluntarily request the review, it is still a valuable tool to maintain the viability of the city's housing stock. In the absence of major industrial or commercial development, the housing stock is still the city's main asset. Weakening oversight of its well-being, in Plaintalker's view, opens the door to exploitation to the benefit of outside investors who do not really care about how people have to live in its homes or rental properties.
--Bernice Paglia
I agree wholeheartedly with your writings. For a Councilperson, Burney, to want to get rid of an ordinance that protects the citizen is a tragedy. Plainfield has always had a problem with absentee landlords. There has to be some sort of law to requite them to maintain their properties.
ReplyDeleteThank you Bernice for bringing this subject to the forefront. I must respectfully disagree with your
ReplyDeleteevaluation on the Certificate of Compliance (C of C) process. All the program has done is encourage bad repairs by anxious sellers.
Councilmen Burney is right, the division should be abolished. It is a waste of taxpayers money. I think
Plainfield is the only town in Union County that has the program, (Rahway might too). Why is that?
The ordinance was originally created by a Council that was frustrated, like you, with the disrepair
of City properties.
With all due respect to Director Turk and his Inspectors, they are not trained or experienced in testing furnaces, evaluating electrical services and the like. They are not engineers. Their expertise and training are limited to checking for crack windows and broken window sash ropes. Nor would it be affordable to hire people who are trained to perform these duties. Unfortunately Director Turk is protecting his turf (and his employees jobs).
In a previous blog a comment mentioned that Burney wanted to abolishes the C of C because he is a
house inspector and wants more business. I personally don't have any knowledge of Mr. Burney's profession but saying that he would gain business by the abolishment of the C of C is just foolish. The C of C process was never meant to be a substitute for a professional home inspection.
Neither does the process eliminate illegal apartments. All landlords have to do is remove stoves, sinks, and
occupants before scheduled inspections. Afterwards the illegal apartment returns. Economics is the
only cure for that problem.
You mentioned in your blog "the buyer or seller must voluntarily request the review", this too is not true.
The C of C is mandatory in Plainfield. The Courts in Plainfield have held Attorneys who perform the
real estate closings as the responsible parties when a C of C has not been performed prior to closing. It
is the attorney's responsibility to make sure their seller has complied.
Councilman Burney has been advocating for some time to eliminate the C of C. And we should seriously look at this. In the most recent City budget process Burney called for this and suggested that the savings be used to fund the library. Unfortunately he could not convince his colleagues and the library budget was cut. Soon after the board of the library cut the night and weekend hours. Ultimately Burney voted against that budget.
Our Inspection Department is a viable and necessary instrument of our City Government. The Certificate of
Compliance is not, and it should be eliminated.
Since Plainfield's overall look is on of neglect and not cared for, the interior of the apartment buildings and houses might as well match the exteriors. I am so amazed to be living in a city where not only does the city government apparently feel helpless ( and act that way ) when confronting commmerical business owners and landlords for the maintenance of their properties. AND NOW Burney actually suggests we loosen the reigns even more on the already lax system.
ReplyDelete- In the city of Glens Falls NY ( you can look this up in the Post Star online, the local newspaper )the city is SUING the Catholic Church to make repairs to a property they own to bring it up to code and solve safety issues. THE CITY IS DRAGGING THE PROPERTY OWNER INTO COURT TO MAKE REPAIRS. Again, THE CITY IS ACTUALLY FORCING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE REPAIRS. The roof of the property has holes in it and is exposed dangerously to the elements likely causing the roof to weaken. They are being forced to repair the roof so that it doesn't collapse further exposing even more of the building to elements. ( Sound like a building we remember on North Avenue ??? ) This is how it works in the mystical, magical place called the REAL WORLD. The city of Glens Falls is not some "rich" tony town that everyone in Plainfield hates being compared to. It is full mostly of average to low income people. The city might not have much and has struggled for 50yrs after all the industry left, but in the last 20 years they have simply started demanding the property owners care and clean up their property. The city looks better because the CITY GOVERNMENT DEMANDS IT. Not because there is something in the water, but because the CITY GOVERNMENT DEMANDS IT.
( COMMON THEME HERE...you get what you ask for )
- The City of Plainfield asks less and less of property owners for care of the property, but wonders why it looks like a garbage pit. YOU FUND INSPECTIONS WITH REAL INSPECTIONS...Stop going after property owners with uneven sidewalks and clean up the commercial properties in Plainfield. I can see how this might be considered rocket science to anyone in city government.
how true how true.with most landlords its all about the money.and they could careles how the tenant lives.leaking roofs,garbage all over,dripping faucets.and really how they could save money by fixing the problems.yet all they see is,the rent check at the beginning of the month.
ReplyDeleteSo true Rob, An example: once again we are seeing yard waste thrown into the street. The next pick up is in September! Can you imagine coming to Plainfield to look at realestate and seeing heaps of brush in the streets? Any one would run the other way. Ordinances must be inforced across the board.
ReplyDeletePlainfield's requirement of a pre-closing inspection that generates a punchlist of items that must be cured before a Certif. of Occuapancy can be issued is an outrage. There are no published guidelines; there is no right to appeal an arbitrary decision that is made by an individual whose qualifications are, to be kind, questionable. We are not just talking about slumlords here--the program applies to anyone, including the typical owner of a 1-2 family house. That homeowner, who has already negotiated a sales price based upon a clear understanding that the (often older) house will be sold "as is", and a closing date that must be adhered to, is suddenly confronted with a list of defects that must be cured immediately and, in all probability, at a significant cost. To repeat: ASOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO APPEAL! The flip side, of course, is whether a benefit has been obtained. Well, in the almost 15 years since the program has been in place, has there been any significant improvement in Plainfield's housing stock? Since there haven't been any hearings, this can only be answered anecdotally, but I think it's safe to say that it has not. So, we have a program that over a 15 year period has failed to produce any tangible benefits, but makes home ownership in Plainfield more unattractive and difficult--how can anyone say that the program is not a complete failure? I completely support Councilman Burney's position. Our resources would be much better spent in enforcing code violations on properties that are clearly problems but which are not currently on the market.
ReplyDeleteNONE OF THESE COMMENTS (except 12.35 am)
ReplyDeletehave to do with the C of C. They ALL are CODE ENFORCEMENTS/Inspection issues.
This town never seems to amaze me.
Why can't people focus on the subject, drop the rhetoric, stop blaming someone else and offer up solutions.
One Dan Damon in town is enough!
I guess I'm glad Burney won't get re-elected. I can't believe after the problems with Connolly Properties, which continue, and with the many houses in Planfield that have been divided into twice as many rooms, anyone would do away with the only protection we have. Our inept mayor helped the overcrowding situation and David Connolly when she first got in office. I know of a house on the corner of Watchung and Kensington where there are three rooms rented in the basement, which is very illegal. I hope our City Council thinks of the residents of Plainfield,Councilman Burney certainly isn't.
ReplyDeleteSo, answer the question about why Plainfield has a C of C, and not other town does? We do not need inspectors with limited ability or knowledge, we need the inspectors to enforce the ordinances on the books - ALL THE TIME. We are talking about an inspection that happens at the time of the sale. What about during the 30 years the homeowner is living in the home? We don't care about them?
ReplyDeleteGet rid of the C of C, make the inspectors enforce the codes that make this city look like a dump, and let the potential buyers worry about the inspections.
Who is going to buy in a place that looks awful from the outside anyway?
Burney wants to get rid of the C of C for his own benefit. Perhaps inspections should go to his house to see what is going on there. Maybe he will special treatment like he did with his fence.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it possible for even an unwise unlatino man able to drive down any street and see this town is turning into a slum ??? It is not because honest hard working Mr Turk is not trying, people just do not want to improve.
ReplyDeleteI have heard of several instances where the C of C included the need to paint the inside of a closet. Come on!
ReplyDeleteMy grandmother always said that a little bit of knowledge is a horrible thing. First, Code Violations are indeed are a pervasive problem within Plainfield. But noone is addressing the root of the problem. Number 1 the inspections division operates on a skeleton crew Number 2: Total negligence when it comes to the effective use of technology. The department is using the same basic system that's atleast 3 decades old. Where the hell is IT on this???
ReplyDeleteI mean come on, a box with 3x5 cards to keep track of an entire city.
Finally on the C of C. We need this program. It can be debated what should be included in this inspection but anyone familiar with real estate knows buzzards would flying over Plainfield looking to buy as many slumhouses as possible and pack them with as many people who won't or can't complain about their declining conditions.
And.... What if I buy a house without a C of C that's real piece of crap. I say yeah I'll fix that hole in the floor as soon as somebody falls through it. Twice. If I rent it what official will ever see the inside of that home. Do you know what this does to our neighborhoods. It's a damn shame.