by Cheryl Splain, KnoxPages.com reporter
MOUNT VERNON — A public hearing to discuss proposed revisions to the city’s property maintenance ordinance was well attended on Monday night. Many in attendance were property owners who have rental units.
Resident Chris Menapace, the only person to speak wholly in favor of the draft revisions, said the draft “has the potential to benefit Mount Vernon as a whole greatly.” Menapace, the city’s former fire chief, said the draft separates maintenance and zoning issues, frees the Dilapidated Building Commission to do what it was intended to do and also frees up the safety-service director. “This is nothing revolutionary, this is nothing new,” he said, adding that it will ensure that people will take care of their property.
A number of landlords opposed the draft because it looks to the property owner as the sole recourse for the actions and behavior of tenants. Steve Kennedy said that as a businessperson, there is too much of a burden placed on the landlord. “I don’t see a lot of teeth here against the tenants,” he said. “It’s not right to fine a landlord for something a tenant is doing.”
“We don’t have any leverage,” said landlord Steve Davis, adding that the only recourse landlords have if tenants do not comply is eviction, which takes a minimum of 30 days according to the legal process. “There’s nothing you can do if you are a property owner other than going to court,” said Gene Doup. “Those judges don’t do you a bit of good, really. It doesn’t matter what you sue for, you’ll get half.”
Landlord Jay Maners said an ordinance that fines tenants will create a court record which will support a landlord’s case during eviction proceedings. Marty May, who owns mobile home rentals, said the beautification aspect of the ordinance was good, but agreed she has nothing to back her up when she tells tenants the rules for keeping the mobile home park in good condition.
Rental owner George Ellis said it is frustrating to deal with tenants who punch holes in walls and break windows. “Don’t put an unreasonable burden on these investors,” he told council members, gesturing toward the landlords in the audience.
“The tenant is violating the law, not the landlord,” said Tom Cennamo. “We need help with this to know who we can rent to and who we can’t. We need something on record.” Cennamo suggested that the landlord and the tenant be notified when violations occur. The tenant has five days to correct the violation; if the tenant does not comply, the landlord has an additional five days to correct the violation.
“The goal you as council members are after is the same most of us as landlords are after,” said Claude Gates. “Landlords are bound by the Ohio Revised Code. You are putting us into a difficult situation… With tenants, you have the ability to charge them [under the Ohio Revised Code.]” City Law Director Chip McConville confirmed that a municipality has the authority to impose obligations on tenants and on landlords.
A second issue residents comment on involves the section dealing with recreational vehicles, watercraft and trailers. Wayne Noggle of Sychar Road said being allowed to have only one is too restrictive. He suggested the ordinance be amended to allow one house-style recreational vehicle, insured and licensed, in the back yard and one two-wheel utility trailer in the driveway. Forrest Ferrell agreed with being able to have a camper and a two-wheel utility trailer; South Main Street resident Ray Neighbarger felt a fishing boat and a utility trailer should both be acceptable.
Susan Ramser said there are many good things in the draft ordinance; she also said she was not sure council understands the community’s feelings on vehicle storage and that council is not really in tune with how people are living in Mount Vernon. She suggested council survey residents and find out what residents feel is acceptable and unacceptable use of trailers. Ramser asked where in the ordinance the city is given authority to require landowners to maintain trees and sidewalks. Her third point was that it was okay for some deteriorating buildings to reach the point of condemnation but buildings important to the city’s history should never be allowed to reach that stage. She requested council consider legislation that would include directions for buildings to be considered a landmark status.
The revised ordinance is coming through council’s Planning and Zoning Committee which is chaired by Councilwoman Nancy Vail. “We understand, we are sympathetic to what you are trying to tell us,” Vail told the audience after the comments were heard. “The message we hear is we need to come up with some sort of mechanism to hold both parties responsible,” said Councilman Sam Barone.
