I changed things around a bit, and added a few things. It's as new to me as it is to you, but I think it'll work. As usual I'll try to have a variety of topics, but come summer there will be more postings about car events. You can email me at cruisaholic@hotmail.com Keep the shiny side up!

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Housing inspection debacle

The meeting for answers to the housing inspection move seems to have created more questions than it answered. If it was truely a cost saving move, will moving Inspectors to the fire department really save money? If the department couldn't do it's job before, should they be advising the Fire Department on how to do it? How will driving a Fire Department truck to where the cars are parked save money? Does Tony LaHood actually think anyone is buying into his statement that the inspection department is vindictive and carry grudges?

Several things didn't seem to make sense in the Times article in today's paper. The first was Craig Malin running the meeting. If he was his usually wordy self, I doubt any questions got answered by him. He is a consumate politcian who can talk for 10 minutes and not say anything the average Joe can comprehend. How is there $197,000 available to help move inspectors to the Fire Department when this is supposed to be a cost cutting measure? Why is the Fire Department taking both sides of the arguement? Either the job can be done or not, unless you take the Queen of Denial slant that there are different versions of the truth.

Tom Carnahan wants the bad property owners to pay more for services so it isn't subsidized. While making sense at first glance, all it does is raise rents to people who can't rent from better landlords. No one, except the government is going to take a loss on their profits. I do, for once, agree with Fritz Miller that all city departments should take a hit of some kind. I think the department needed work, but not beyond rehabilitation.


Anonymous said...

I disagree with the statement that "the poor tenants can't afford the increase". The inspection fees even if doubled for houses would be around $30 a year more. Divided out over 12 months that is less than $3 a month. This is a business for the landlord. Why do we as property owners have to subsidize the landlords? Besides that I'm sure the inspection fees are tax deductible.

cruiser said...

We homeowners have been subsidizing this all along. I'm just saying some of these slumlords will raise the rent $60 a month if it cost them $30. I also believe if there is an increase it would be more like $100 as apposed to $30. I have no problem with the good landlords, just the bad ones.

Anonymous said...

I doubt the increase would be $100.00. I think the max would be $85.00. If the slum landlords raised it higher shame on them. However they set the rent in the first place and there is a limit on what they can charge for some properties and still rent them.
By the way both Bill Lynn and Ron VanFossen said at VanFossen's ward meeting they would be willing to do this. Lets see if they are good to their word this time.

cruiser said...

Even at $85 its too high. The slumlords rent mostly SSI people on affordable housing or Chapter 19, or whatever they're calling it now. They make more money off this than you think. I have have been in some low-income housing buildings that are substandard and they still get big bucks because these people are limited on who will rent to them. I also want to see Lynn and Van Fossen keep their word. Let's all hope it happens.