Oblivious or Duplicitous? You be the judge.

This post was edited on 10/2/2021 to include the link to Meadville City ordinances. The ordinances prove that the discussion of Council to result in action to improve upon the already existing Property Maintenance code.

We're going to revisit a very hot topic for the VFM crew, housing. Mainly, safe housing. Let's start with a snapshot of what this specifically means to them, shall we?

ALL CITY RESIDENTS...

We agree, housing should be safe for all, it protects the neighborhoods and individuals within those neighborhoods.

We have a problem when they start to insinuate that landlords are the root of these problems, going so far as to come them slumlords. Some issues they bring up, are open to interpretation, and they are issues that could be caused by those who inhabit the dwelling. We are not stating that there are not bad landlords, we are also not stating that there are all bad tenants. We think that each instance has it's own root causes and you can't state that it's one over the other all the time.

Say for instance, sanitary, healthy and decent. Decent to whom? Each individual would have their own idea of decent, yes? So now, sanitary. What exactly classifies as sanitary, we will get into that in a moment. However, you'll see that sanitary conditions are typically a result of the occupants doing, not outside sources and certainly not the landlord. Healthy? What the heck do you even mean by healthy? Mold? Insects and rodents? Do we have evidence that these conditions actually exist in our City? We mean photographs, documented reports, communications that document that an issue was made aware to the appropriate individuals? We've yet to see anything aside from them spouting off claims that these conditions exist.

You may recall from when Larry & Autumn preached this same exact platform, they failed to cite City codes that already existed. What the current crew his now failing to acknowledge or disseminate is that the Redevelopment authority, as well as the current Council, have already made strides to improve upon the existing codes and existing enforcement procedures. These discussions started around January of this year, and continued on, through a series of discussions between Council, City manager, and RDA. All of these discussions are detailed in the City Council minutes posted on the City website. We took the liberty to explore some of these and bring to light some of the main talking points.

It's interesting to note that approximately 15% of the City units are considered vacant, that equates to approximately 200 properties. So, are these 15% in the total of the 25% that are considered blighted? So, are we to assume that of those 25% of blighted properties that are not vacant, 10% are deemed blighted?

Let's revisit now the part where they state "many other municipalities". When you click on this underlined text it takes you to the City of Erie's rental registration and inspection program. What then are some of the issues they look for?

As you can see, some of these items are open for interpretation. There is no dispute by any party that safety is a priority. The concern is that the safety is not a priority for all housing, even though the VFM camp is preaching safe housing for all.

Now the VFM crew has also reference Titusville's rental inspection program. It is much like Erie's program, but they were so kind to include photos of the issues they are looking for. Let's go to unsanitary...

We would agree this is unsanitary, no doubt about it. Sanitary relates to how things impact hygiene and health. The problem here, this is not something the landlord did. The landlord isn't responsible for how the tenant keeps the inside of the home. It is after all, their home.

How about hoarding? Is this something that a landlord is responsible for?

Now the issue of "garbage or junk". This needs more clarification, because what one person deems junk, may not be junk to another.

In comes the newest revisions to the City Ordinance, things that are currently enforceable in the City of Meadville!

We'll come back to items 1 and 2 of the 8 proposed changes, but let's take it from #3;

How many times have you drove through the City and seen boarded up windows? It seems uninviting and makes the City and neighborhood look uninhabited and run down. Not a topic of discussion for the VFM crew, is it?

We find this beneficial because then it is clear and specific. It would state household items that are stored outside and/or have not been used in 180 days or unable to still perform it's intended purpose. This would go a long way to helping the overall appearance of the City.

We much prefer this approach over that of the Titusville Rental Inspection;

The next issue addresses unregistered or junk vehicles, wow sounds a lot like what the rental inspection program looks for. But keep in mind, these ordinance changes will be for the ENTIRE City, not just rental units. All units will be held to these standards.

This is actually another thing that the VFM crew has yet to draw attention to, interesting.

Next up, they discuss tarps on roofs. Well, rather they started there and ended up confused along the way.

We all know there are a few properties that have tarps on the roofs. We can all agree, we would like to see less of the tarped roofs, this would benefit the value and appearance of the entire neighborhood, as well as, the City as a whole. We think we'll let the VFM crew classify this one under Safe housing, or blight.

After this point, they looked at grass, snow and garbage removal. Something that we haven't heard about from the VFM crew either. Ever walk down an un-shoveled sidewalk during the winter? Was it an enjoyable experience? Probably not. This could go a long way to helping with that kind of situation.

We find it commendable the proposed change to timelines to allow ample time for the situations to be rectified by the owners and/or occupants.

Oh yes, our favorite one! Animal waste. We know you've heard the VFM team preach about needing more pet waste stations. Pet waste stations are another maintenance item for the City to staff someone to take care of. The change to this ordinance would require that waste be removed weekly from the properties, regardless of what kind of animal left the mess. Something pet waste stations would not address, cat, chicken and duck poop.

And in case you're wondering what happens if someone else's critters are pooping in your yard...

So now, back to points 1 & 2.

As you can see, currently they post the property and/or send notice to the address on the tax bill. We wouldn't have an issue with them moving to first class certified letters, but would also still like to see the violations posted on the building. This would alert the residents that the City is in fact aware of a code violation on that property, what the violation is and that they are working to remedy the situation. This isn't to say that the owner or occupant wouldn't just remove the posting, but it's likely that by the time it is removed someone would have seen it.

The cost incurred for citing these properties, like everything else, has gone up. Therefore it only seems justifiable that the minimum cost increases for violations that go to citation.

Have you noticed a pattern? These are all valid issues within our City. These issues are not just on rental units, they can be found on any property within the City. The proposed changes benefit the good of all within our City.

Alas, the final talking point.

By posting notice on the building, the tenant would be aware of the violation. Although, the question we would have is, how many of these properties are rentals where they have gone to citation? Has there been a proven breakdown of the owner not rectifying the situation or asking the tenant to do so? If so, how often is this occuring?

Per another discussion regarding notices and citations;

So, in their own discussions it was determined that not all of the violations are in relation to rental properties. Why would we then implement a program to only look at these properties? If the City had gone after the properties that had violations, in 2020 if we assumed each had a minimum cost of $50 for the citation, that would be 28 properties that did not correct the violations.

Now, once again remember; Autumn campaigned for a Rental inspection program to address safe housing, yes? She is also currently campaigning with Kinder, Myers and Harkless on the same exact thing, yes? So why the heck did she say this on March 3rd, during a City Council meeting?

NOT A PRIORITY OF COUNCIL!

Hold up, what? Why is she not elated that this is happening? Why is she not wanting to contribute to this? This is great for Meadville.

It seems that Autumn doesn't think that these are that big of issues, if she's not interested in discussing them? She just wants to pass the job onto someone else and not talk through and represent what Council feels is in the best interest of all involved. In fact, Stearns and McKnight both indicated they would rather work on the changes than to have adverse impacts on residents. Wow, that sounds like something a Council member that cares about the SAFETY and well being of all would state. Maybe Autumn doesn't want to discuss changes because it takes wind out of the sails of the VFM campaign? You know, the one that she is marching for.

And on April 7, 2021;

Now, what exactly would their rental inspection cover that is not already being covered by current or new City ordinances? We're listening.....

Safety should be a priority for the City as a whole, not just selectively targeting groups based on a biased agenda. Remember this quote from the start of this post "For too long, the city has turned a blind eye to these conditions and refused to hold slumlords accountable. We need city leaders who have the courage to enact policies that protect tenants."

NEWS FLASH! The City just did it, so shut the heck up and lookup what you're preaching. How are people still following this garbage? Seriously. Especially when Autumn sits on Council and knows they just implemented all of these changes. Your campaign is baseless! The City showed up and Jim Roha made the first motion to accept these ordinances. He also stepped up to the plate to be on the blighted property review committee.

We have edited this blog post to include a link to the current Property Maintenance code for the City of Meadville. As is evidenced under the section 1721.20, you will find the additions from above. https://www.codepublishing.com/PA/Meadville/#!/Meadville17/Meadville1721.html#1721

They also had established the Blighted property review committee, as evidenced above. Information regarding this can be found at this link; https://www.codepublishing.com/PA/Meadville/#!/Meadville01/Meadville0178.html#178.07

For your reference, we have also copied and pasted the entirety of the contents from the link.

178.07 Blighted property review committee.

1. Purpose – Procedure. The purposes of these provisions are, consistent with the preservation of neighborhoods as stated in the legislative findings in the ordinance codified in this section, to establish a blighted property review committee of the City of Meadville, hereinafter termed the “committee,” to implement the provisions of the State Urban Redevelopment Law of 1945, as amended, and to promote reuse of the reinvestment in properties in the City of Meadville.

From time to time, the council of the City of Meadville shall, by resolution, establish rules and regulations for operation of the committee.

2. Committee Composition – Terms. The blighted property review committee shall consist of members, holding two-year terms, consisting of the following:

(A) One member of council, appointed by council;

(B) Two representatives of the redevelopment authority, appointed by the authority;

(C) A representative of the Meadville city planning commission, appointed by the commission;

(D) A representative of the executive branch of city government, appointed by the city manager.

Any vacancy on the committee shall be filled for the unexpired term by the respective appointing agency as noted in this section.

3. Blighted Property Removal. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the redevelopment authority of the City of Meadville shall have the power to acquire by purchase, gift, bequest, eminent domain or otherwise, any blighted property as defined herein, shall have the power to hold, clear, manage and/or dispose of said property for residential or related uses, and commercial or industrial reuse, as provided by law. This power shall be exercised in accord with the procedure set forth hereinafter.

4. Blighted Property to Include.

(A) Any premises which, because of physical condition or use, is regarded as a public nuisance at common law or has been declared a public nuisance in accordance with the local housing, building, fire and related codes.

(B) Any premises which, because of physical condition, use or occupancy, is considered an attractive nuisance to children, including but not limited to abandoned wells, shafts, basements, excavations and unsafe fences or structures.

(C) Any dwelling which, because it is dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe, vermin-infested or lacking in the facilities and equipment required by the property maintenance code of the municipality, has been designated by the city’s engineer as unfit for human habitation.

(D) Any structure which is a fire hazard or is otherwise dangerous to the safety of persons or property.

(E) Any structure from which the utilities, plumbing, heating, sewage or other facilities have been disconnected, destroyed, removed or rendered ineffective so that the property is unfit for its intended use.

(F) Any vacant or unimproved lot or parcel or ground in a predominantly built-up neighborhood which, by reason of neglect or lack of maintenance, has become a place for accumulation of trash and debris or haven for rodents and other vermin.

(G) Any unoccupied property which has been tax delinquent for a period of two years.

(H) Any property which is vacant but not tax delinquent, which has not been rehabilitated within one year of the receipt of notice to rehabilitate from the appropriate city code official.

(I) Any abandoned property.

(a) A property shall be considered abandoned if:

(i) It is a vacant or unimproved lot or parcel of ground on which a municipal lien for the cost of demolition of any structure located on the property remains unpaid for a period of six months;

(ii) It is a vacant property or vacant or unimproved lot or parcel of ground on which the total of municipal liens on the property for tax or any other type of claim of the municipality are in excess of 150 percent of the fair market value of the property; or

(iii) The property has been declared abandoned by the owner, including an estate that is in possession of the property.

5. Residential and Related Use. Residential and related use shall include residential property for sale or rental and related uses, including, but not limited to, park and recreation areas, neighborhood community service, and neighborhood parking lots.

6. Certification to RDA. The committee and the Meadville city planning commission, upon making a determination that any property is blighted within the terms of this section and the urban redevelopment law as amended, must certify said blighted property to the redevelopment authority, except that:

(A) No property shall be certified to the redevelopment authority unless it is vacant. A property shall be considered vacant if:

(a) The property is unoccupied or its occupancy has not been authorized by the owner of the property;

(b) In the case of an unimproved lot or parcel of ground, a lien for the cost of demolition of any structure located on the property remains unpaid for a period of six months; or

(c) In the case of an unimproved lot or parcel of ground, the property has remained in violation of any provision of local building, property maintenance or related codes applicable to such lots or parcels, including licensing requirements, for a period of six months.

(B) No property shall be certified to the redevelopment authority unless the owner of the property or an agent designated by him for receipt of service of notices within the municipality has been served with notice of the determination that the property is blighted, together with an appropriate order to eliminate the conditions causing the blight and notification that failure to do so may render the property subject to condemnation under this act. The notice shall be served upon the owner or his agent in accord with subsection (7) of this section pertaining to service of notice determination of a public nuisance. The owner or his agent shall have the right of appeal from the determination per subsection (8) of this section.

(C) No blighted property shall be certified to the redevelopment authority until the time period for appeal has expired and no appeal has been taken, or, if taken, the appeal has been disposed of, and the owner or his agent has failed to comply with the order of the responsible department of any other officer or agency.

7. Notice of Determination. The service of notice of determination of blight by the committee shall be served, at a minimum, through the following methods:

(A) Service by certified mail and first class mail at the last known address of the said owner; and

(B) Posting of said notice upon the premises that have been determined blighted, record of said posting being made by photograph.

8. Appeal of Determination of Blight. Any owner or person who is aggrieved by a ruling of the committee that their property has been determined blighted for the reasons set forth, may appeal the decision as hereinafter stated. The appeal shall be in the form prescribed by the city and shall state the specific reasons for appeal.

The appeal must be filed with the blighted property review committee, in writing, within 30 days of the date of notice by said owner or his agent.

9. Reuse of Acquired Property.

(A) Acquisition and disposition of blighted property under this section shall not require preparation, adoption or approval of a redevelopment area plan or redevelopment proposal, but at least 30 days prior to acquisition of any property, the redevelopment authority shall transmit identification of the property to the City of Meadville planning commission and shall request a recommendation as to the appropriate reuse of the property. The redevelopment authority shall not acquire the property where the City of Meadville planning commission certifies that disposition for residential or related use would not be in accord with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance of the municipality.

(B) Power of eminent domain shall be exercised pursuant to a resolution of the redevelopment authority and the procedure set forth in the act of June 22, 1964 (Sp. Sess., P.L. 84, No. 6), known as the “eminent domain code,” as amended.

(C) Property disposed of within a redevelopment area shall be disposed of under a redevelopment contract in accordance with the provisions of this act.

(D) Property disposed of outside an urban renewal project area shall be disposed of by deed in accordance with the provisions set forth in applicable law. (Ord. 3788 §§ 1 – 9, 2021)