Councilors’ benefits
Besides getting a small salary for their work at the council, they are also entitled to health insurance paid for by the city and a telephone. There have been comments out there about City Councilor at-Large Nilka Alvarez-Rodriguez of whether she should return the city telephone she uses and return the expenses connected with her health insurance.
I was curious so I went to see her at Mary Immaculate where she is in rehabilitation. She told me that she pays for her own telephone and her own health insurance policy. Then I requested under the Freedom of Information Act, a list of what city councilors have either. Although I have not received the confirmation, I was told that only Kendrys Vasquez and Estela Reyes have city provided health insurance and only Sandy Almonte and Modesto Maldonado have a city cellular telephone.
By the way, Nilka looks much better than the way she was at the last city council meeting she attended.
Apartment inspections ordinance
As we go to print, the Ordinance Committee of the Lawrence City Council will be discussing on June 30th the new Rental Unit Inspection. If approved, then it will have to be approved by the next city council meeting, although they were supposed to be sending out notices to property owners beginning July 1st, 2016. The program is set to start with registration on January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2017 and property owners who fail to register will have to pay a $100 fine.
The purpose for doing this is well-intended. They are trying to insure that residents live in apartments and condominiums meeting the minimum requirements for suitable living, which is what we all aspire to.
All landlords, to whom this applies, should register with the city at a cost of $25 the first year and $15 for subsequent years. Single family homes will be exempt from these inspections and so will be three family houses as long as the owner lives in one of the apartments, otherwise, is $100.
Inspections for building with 4 or more apartments will be $200 per building and the inspection of 7+ units will be $400 total. These inspections will be performed every three years. Absentee landlords will be subject to the fees for two- and three-family homes. There is a penalty of $50 for appointments missed.
This would require 7 additional inspectors at a cost of $240,000 or $80,000 each. During the first year the city expects to have a profit of $92,438 and the next two years $23,874 each year going to the city’s general fund.
The problem I see with this is that Lawrence, particularly the north side of the city, is made up of old houses probably loaded with violations according to Inspectional Services and the cost of this process will be prohibitive for most property owners. It is not just the cost of the inspections but what would happen when the inspectors find violations. Landlords will have 30 days to make corrections or face a fine of $100 each month they are in non-compliance.
There is a long list a possible violations dealing with roof, ceilings, ceiling height, walls, floors, handrails, electrical connections, amperage, temporary wiring, window screens, storm doors (front and back of each apartment), heating, ventilation, kitchen and bathroom sinks, tubs, showers, interior doors, stove, oven, etc. and, of course, be free of pests and rodents.
Also, they will be checking the storage and collection of rubbish and the general maintenance of the area. There should be exit signs and emergency lights in the exterior.
Those are the living conditions all human being desire for their families but that is not reality in Lawrence. I wish everyone could live under those conditions but we must think of the wrath this will create in this community. It may be very well-intentioned but it will decimate many families who will not be able to comply.
If anyone is interested in receiving a copy of the 28-page proposed ordinance from which I copied this information, please send a request to rumbo@rumbonews.com
Community response
The Director of Economic Development Abel Vargas had requested a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to build a house in his yard at 610 Haverhill St. (Tower Hill Section of the city) for the purpose of renting it.
Every time his request was to be discussed by that group, they kept tabling it. Each time, there were neighborhood residents who objected to the plan and they had issued a petition with over 60 signatures. They were concerned with traffic congestion in that area and noise, besides that he needed a variance because he did not have sufficient space as allowed by city ordinances.
Last June 2nd, the board discussed it and refused to grant the variance. Now he has 20 days from the day he files his objection and the count will begin. I know that the neighbors are vigilant, ready to attend future meetings and they must be commended. There are so many times I wished people would rise up expressing what they want or need before the proper authorities but they seldom attend a city council meeting or call their councilors. Instead, everything gets broadcast on the radio where it will get no results.
