Reply With QuoteThis is a good thing for Buffalo homeowners & landlords and neighborhoods.
It gets them to pay attention to their property, especially the ones who choose to live outside of the area.
Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? I realize that a lot of people are caught red-handed, but how can this be legal with due process and whatnot? I really don't like to argue on behalf of people who are most likely criminals, but this sticks out at me as something that shouldn't be allowed in our society. Like it was said in the Cedargrove thread: "If you let it happen to someone else, it might be you next."Landlords face fines if they don't evict drug suspects
By GENE WARNER
News Staff Reporter
5/7/2005
Landlords who tolerate drug activity in their Buffalo rental houses have a new problem to deal with: a get-tough policy city officials announced Friday.
It's a policy that could start hitting such landlords in their wallets.
From now on, when Buffalo police make an arrest for illegal drug activity at a residence, the owner will be notified by registered letter. If the owner does not take action to evict the tenants within 10 days, city officials will take the case to City Court.
And that could lead to an eviction - and a possible $5,000 fine against the owner - thanks to an anti-prostitution law from the early 20th century.
"This will force the landlord to start eviction proceedings against these individuals in a reasonable amount of time," Deputy Buffalo Police Commissioner Robert T. Chella said. "If they don't, the Housing Court has the ability to go after them."
The tougher policy was announced at a news conference Friday by top Buffalo police officials and three city judges.
Chella provided a recent example to show the need for the new program.
Less than two weeks ago, following complaints from residents of the city's First Ward and Valley areas, Buffalo police raided four houses and arrested eight people on drug charges. Neighbors even came out of their homes to applaud the arrests.
The next morning, those suspects were back in their houses.
That led to a letter from a community-based group that expressed both appreciation for the arrests and frustration over the continued drug activity.
"The Buffalo Police Department does not have the power to jail someone before a trial," Chella said. "It frustrates the community, because they think a problem is gone, once we make the arrests."
City judges helped implement the new policy, which will allow authorities to follow up on any property and its owner, while the criminal case goes through the courts.
Chief City Judge Thomas P. Amodeo, City Judge James A.W. McLeod and Housing Judge Henry J. Nowak explained that the new policy will be a collaboration of the Buffalo Police Department, the corporation counsel's office, Save Our Streets Task Force and various parts of City Court, including housing court and the special-term judge.
Those parties will rely on the Bawdy House Law that was used to close prostitution houses dating back to the early 1900s. It allows a landlord to evict a tenant involved in illegal activity; if the landlord fails to act, other parties may demand the eviction.
What's new will be the collaboration and follow-through from police and City Court officials to force the landlords to evict their drug-dealing tenants, especially when they may fear retribution from such tenants.
"I think in many instances there's a fear factor involved with many of the landlords," McLeod said. "That fear is removed with this process."
Remain calm!! But run for your lives if necessary!
This is a good thing for Buffalo homeowners & landlords and neighborhoods.
It gets them to pay attention to their property, especially the ones who choose to live outside of the area.
If there is a house that sees more traffic than the New York State Thruway, then yes, there is reason to suspect some thing's going on there, and yes the property owner should know about it and be held accountable.Originally posted by crlachepinochet
Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?
Maybe with a first warning and a fine thereafter if the same activity is going on at one location. Still, property owners who rent their houses for a profit should be heard accountable of what goes on at that house.
how do you hold the landlords responsible in on breathe but also prohibit the landlords from "discriminatring" against rentors. if they can prove they can pay for it you have to rent to them.
It isn't about stereotyping.
Just because a person rents their property to someone doesn't mean they can't keep tabs on it, know who is living there, and what's going on at the residence.
I agree. If the government wants people evicted, let a judge evict the tenants - don't strongarm the property owner by using the threat of civil fines. Have a judge declare any lease agreement voided in 10 days and send the marshalls out on the 10th day to ensure they are gone.Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? I realize that a lot of people are caught red-handed, but how can this be legal with due process and whatnot? I really don't like to argue on behalf of people who are most likely criminals, but this sticks out at me as something that shouldn't be allowed in our society. Like it was said in the Cedargrove thread: "If you let it happen to someone else, it might be you next."
The government does it with public health hazards (i.e. "bazillion cat ladies") - let them do it with this hazard as well....
Data is not the plural of Anecdote.
I have to side on the landlords on this....
I suppose a landlord could have a tenant fill out an application, pay a fee and do both a credit and a criminal record check, that might raise a flag if they have a history.
I suppose a landlord could create a voice mailbox, which they could check 1x or 2x a month and give that number to neighbors of the property so they can contact the landlord if there is a need.
But few landlords live in the same property as their tenants or even within viewing distance. Landlords could and do visit their property but those isolated visits arent going to tell much.
There are privacy laws against mail, telephone and video surveillance so, again, there are limits to what landlords know, even if they visit the property...its much easier to spot a maintenance issue than the integrity of their home business or their visitors.
Even if the landlord finds something, there are discrimination laws and tenant protection laws that generally make eviction difficult.
So here is whats going to happen, the landlord is going to get a letter to evict the tenant. The tenant will refuse to pay the rent because they have to use the funds to find another apartment, deposit and moving expenses. Its going to take 1-2 months to go through the eviction process, possibly longer if the housing judge fights the drug eviction judge...and during that time the landlord gets caught in the buracracy, wastes time, expends legal expenses and looses revenue.
Like the previous poster said, if the judge and the municipality want it so much they should include the eviction notice with the notification.
I KINDA LEAN TOWARDS THIS BEING ONE MORE STEP MAKING OWNING PROPERTY IN ERIE COUNTY UNDESIRABLE. I SUPPORT MAKING NEIGHBORHOODS SAFER FOR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES BUT IF THEY WANT TO EVICT TENANTS, THEN THEY SHOULDNT FORCE THE LANDLORD TO GET CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE BUT LET THE SAME JUDGE ISSUE BOTH THE EVICTION NOTICE AND THE EVICTION.
If landlords checked up as frequently and as intimately as some have suggested, they'd be accused of harassment and invasion of privacy.
Truth springs from argument among friends.
Also, this will probably make it a lot harder for young minorities to get apartments. I don't know how much of Buffalo's apartment stock is homeowner-occupied, but I do know that they're exempt from anti-discrimination laws. I'd bet a lot of people won't want to rent to "those people" if they're probably a little scared of them from the start and now they know they might have to throw them out in 10 days or face huge fines.
The thing that really amazes me about this is that these people haven't been convicted of any crime. Do people caught DWI even lose their license before their court date?
Remain calm!! But run for your lives if necessary!
If landlords checked up as frequently and as intimately as some have suggested, they'd be accused of harassment and invasion of privacy.
Stalking and taking care of their property are two different things.
Stopping at the house once a month to put up the rent check, or once a week to mow the lawn is not harassment. If the landlord installed video cameras in the house or was peeking in the windows at 3 am, that would be invasion of privacy.
The are a lot of landlords who really don't care for anything as long as they get their rent. Yes, there are good tenants who maintain the property they rent, but there's still a lot of renters who deal in drugs and that's what they are going after.
The lardlord of a house who has people living there that are not 'suspicious' of anything, then they have nothing to worry about. They want to target the known drug houses and make the property owners accountable for that.
The lardlord of a house who has people living there that are not 'suspicious' of anything, then they have nothing to worry about. They want to target the known drug houses and make the property owners accountable for that.
THAT IS THE MOST ASSININE THING I HAVE READ IN A WHILE.
THE TERM SUSPICIOUS IS A SUBJECTIVE TERM NOT AN OBJECTIVE ONE.
WHAT IS SUSPICIOUS TO YOU, IS DISCRIMINATION, HARRASSMENT, INVASION OF PRIVACY TO ANOTHER
WHAT IS SUSPICIOUS TO YOU, IS WITHING THE DEFINITION OF NORMAL TO ANOTHER
YOU CANT POSSIBLY EXPECT A LANDLORD TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HOMEBUSINESS, A FREQUENT VISITATION BY FRIENDS AND FAMILY, A CLUB MEETING, ETC....VERSUS...PROSTITUTION, DRUGS, ETC.
NEIGHBORS MAY BE ABLE TO DISCERN THE DIFFERENCE OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS....BUT NOT LANDLORDS!
AGAIN, I SIDE WITH THE LANDLORDS AND I SAY:
1) PASS A LAW FOR APPLICANT TENANTS TO PAY AN APPLICATION FEE FOR A CRIMINAL AND CREDIT CHECK (IF YOU WANT TO DENY RENTERS WITH DRUG HISTORY)
2) PASS A LAW THAT NEIGHBORS MUST HAVE A MEANS TO CONTACT THE LANDLORD TO REPORT SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR (AKA NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH)
3) BUT DONT EVICT A TENANT BEFORE THEY ARE CONVICTED
4) DONT PUT THE LANDLORD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE JUDGE THAT OKS THE EVICTION NOTICE AND THE JUDGE THAT ACTUALLY SIGNS THE EVICTION.....THE LANDLORD COULD POTENTIALLY GET CAUGHT IN A LEGAL LIMBO....WITH THE TENANT REFUSING TO PAY RENT AND THE LANDLORD UNABLE TO EVICT.
I've been dissed! I started this thread first and I got no response.
http://speakupwny.com/forum/showthre...&threadid=3406
Anyway, I'm 100% with the landlords on this one. First off, there's the Innocent till Proven Guilty thing. And, truthfully, it's going to cause a LOT of discrimination against young minorities.
Secondly, if the housing court wants to evict a convicted drug-dealing tenant, so be it. But don't make me do it.
Finally - I can have a suspected child molestor as a tenant, but not a drug dealer?? When will this country realize that the war on drugs is a farce?
therising, this is another place we have agreement
I side with the landlords, too
and I also think that the drug laws are a farce.
Prison and incarceration arent the answer for drugs, unless they commit a violent crime.
Even for the destruction of property, I prefer restitution over incarceration...
Jail and prison dont punish so much as perpetuate and amplify the cycle of violence...plus...criminal records destroy the opportunity for anyone who is struggling to make their life better.
Drug Treatment, ankle bracelets and home incarceration are the better alternatives...why should the taxpayer pay $20,000 a year per person to incarcerate...Id pay it to protect my life and my property but not for drugs or prostitution or the other victimless crimes.
Anyones allegation can make , or guarantee drug activity ? Unless the Cops make arrests in the house, for drug possession or distribution, I don't think this ordinance stands a chance.
High Five my man, moadib!
Like I always said, YOU are the voice of reason.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions