All properties, rentals, and privately owned homes as well. Renters should not be singled out. New rules should include, Christmas decorations, and stagnant pools, garbage strune about, garbage cans. Mark is right though, the city already has rules in place, they just dont enforce them. I've also noticed these only apply to certain people. It shouldn't make a difference, homeowner, or renter, rich, or poor.

I agree Karen! Besides enforcement, shouldn't there be some sort of incentive (tax?) for those of us who spend the time keeping up our properties?

The Batavian, peopled with so many seemingly Libertarian leaners, would sound ever so hypocritical if it were to endorse legal means to enforce property maintenance. Personally, I am of the carrot vs. stick mentality. I would rather see a property tax credit for owners whose property is kept up.

On the same note, I assume that existing codes address risky situations: leaking sewage, mosquito breeding standing water, garbage and other rodent/vermin attractions, unfenced pools/ponds, broken sidewalks and architectural hazards.

If a family is strapped for funds, what does it serve to financially penalize them for a messy lawn?

I was partial to Howard's idea of neighborhood volunteers offering to help those who can't manage on their own. There are a number of extenuating circumstances that might prevent a person from addressing property maintenance- age, health issues, work schedule, broken mower...

As for commercial properties, including rentals, aren't there agencies that inspect and issue occupancy permits? Can they rescind a permit when a property is no longer in compliance?

...And an afterthought. We often see pictures of beautiful estates and wonderful Xmas light displays. What if the news featured "Eyesore of the Week." As with the Salvation Army clean up, maybe shame would prove effective motivation.

I've never seen anyone on here with anything close to libertarian views, I seems that you all love to aggress
your neighbors. My house is neat and well kept that doesn't mean I want my neighbor but in jail or fined because she keeps her property the way she wants. I find it sad you have to use tax money to enforce your Ideas on other people. Did anyone ever try talking to your neighbors about it or offering help. And if its not your neighbors is none of you business.

We all know that there are landlords who will not take care of their property unless they are forced. They will let their property run down lower the value of everyone’s. The people who rent in these slums can not afford to move or complain, so they are stuck. There is a real eye sore across Main Street from Wilson Farms’, next to GCASA. Take a look. It has been that way for years and the City has done nothing. Gutters falling off, etc.

Will this law apply to places like GCASA and that new development on East Main near Aldi’s?

I am in favor of code enforcement and hope this new law will in fact be enforced, and not like in the past.

I do worry that this will put City rentals at a disadvantage now with ones in the Town.

Drive around take a close look then bull doze the dumps that are falling apart.

Terry, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Bud and my views are all about less government, states rights, tougher immigration enforcement, and bringing ALL troops home to our soil. Nice to meet you

Oh yeah, the tax thing burns my butt also. The government runs up debts it can't pay, then forces employers to be tax collectors. The IRS should be shut down, and all the programs out there not provided for in the constitution, out the door!

So Bud - can I assume you are not in favor of this sort of law and are very happy not to live in the City of Batavia?

This idea reminds me of Pericles' attempt at Socialism in Athens thousands of years ago. Failed miserably. Good luck to everyone who wants to repeat failed experiences from the past.

Lets play the demolition game.


New Poll: List the Buildings that should be torn down in Batavia:

Beth, the idea of city living never appealed to me. And especially Batavia, which I don't mean to offend anyone. I do not like how the houses are on top of each other, I hate the light system on Main St, the mall has been an ongoing joke since it was built. A lot of nice people, but I prefer Leroy(even though our taxes are ridiculous!)

As for buildings that would look better in a big pile.
As President Reagan might say:
"Mr.Mallow, tear down that mall" (wishful thinking)

Buildings that should be torn down in Batavia?

The first thing that comes to mind is the mall. I'm not even trying to be a smart ass either.

The Mancuso building on Harvester and Masse Mall have seen better days.

Should the city enact tougher laws to ensure rental properties are better maintained?
Yes. A community is a shared space and all have a responsibility to ensure it's a quality environment.
No. The government shouldn't interfere with private property rights.
Undecided.


The poll is discussing apples and oranges.

Should the city enact tougher laws to ensure RENTAL properties are better maintained.
I read that to mean income property.

2. Yes. A community is a shared space and all have a responsibility to ensure it's a quality environment.
I agree that residential and commercial landlords and those who rent from them share a responsibility to be good neighbors.

3. No. The government shouldn't interfere with PRIVATE property rights.
Since the orginal question specifically addressed RENTAL properties, then there is no issue regarding the rights of PRIVATE property owners.
Would those who answered NO to this poll change their answer if the word PRIVATE was changed to RENTAL and the word "rights" deleted?

A rental is still the private property of the landlord. The government doesn't own it.

replyPosted by Howard Owens on July 3, 2009 - 9:02am
A rental is still the private property of the landlord. The government doesn't own it.

So true, but once a person places their property on the market as a rental, it becomes a business. As a business shouldn't they be held to the same standard as any profit making entity?
I have a great amount of sympathy for landlords who make an effort to keep their property up to snuff. They will be caught in the same net as the slum lords.
The current laws on the books, regarding residential and commercial property owners should be adequate to control the blight under discussion. Those laws are also government intrusion.
I appreciate the belief that there should be little to no government intervention in the lives of the citizens. In a perfect world it would be the ideal situation. As it stands now, absentee landlords and those who are less than diligent regarding their rental properties benefit from the fact that no one is upholding the current laws.

Since I believe in property rights, if a landlord had some slum out in the middle of the desert and it did nothing to impact the value or enjoyment of neighboring properties, I would say it is none of the government business. If tenants are stupid enough to rent from such a landlord, that's their problem.

But in a city environment, things get a little more complicated. What a landlord does can have a tremendous impact on all of the other land owners around him. And as for tenants, while there is a certain amount of buyer beware, there are competing economic issues that make it a little harder for people to move away from slumlords.

Some people are going to oppose any further restrictions on landlords just because they believe the government shouldn't have any say in the matter. I'm in sympathy with that view, but realize its a far more complex issue than a blanket ideology can fairly contemplate.

Owning private property takes some risks. Buying a house is not a guaranteed investment. The government, nor your peers, don't owe you or your family stability in the value of your home. I know that evil sounds awful, but I accept it as the truth.

I view it almost like a business investment. All I can tell you is good luck.

Maybe you'll buy in the city and you'll get stuck in a bad neighborhood in the next five years. Maybe some development will take place near you in the next five years and you're property will increase ten fold. A lot of risk and a lot of reward is involved.

If you don't like those odds, then buy land in the middle of the country where stability is long lasting.

This is not a commonwealth. This is no socialism. When you buy your PRIVATE property YOUR name is on the deed, not any of your neighbors. And when your neighbor sells his or her property you will not see any of the benefits. And maybe the upkeep of their home/business is not of interest to them. Lol I don't think maintaining of property value is a natural right that the government has to protect.

First, let's look at why government exists. In its purest form, government exists because people living within a common area realized that it was to each others' benefit to bond together for each others' protection, both from external enemies and internal bad actors. In other words, security. Over time, such communities found they had a common interest in putting in roads, water systems, sewers, etc. There are any number of tasks that we can't do as well individually as we can do collectively, to each others' benefit.

The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the necessity of government.

At least on a local level, I'm no anarchist. Local government, more than any other government, has a role in our lives.

When you choose to live in a community, you are making a tacit agreement to cooperate in that community. You agree, or example, not to murder your neighbor. If you break a law that the community agrees is in the best interest of all the community to enforce, then you are punished.

I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. One of the main principles of Burkean conservativism is the right to my own property and to enjoy the fruits of my labor. Normally, we think of this in terms of the government not to unjustly and unduly deprive us of our property. But the law is full of codes that protect not only me (don't murder or attack me), but also my property (don't rob or burglar me).

If the government has the obligation, as endowed by the people who formed it, to protect me from harm and theft, if that same government agrees that my neighbor should not cause another kind of theft -- unfairly depressing the value of my property by letting his go to hell -- shouldn't we as the people through our government (should we share this common concern) be able to create and pass laws that say, "for the common good you will not put boards on your window and leave them their for an excessive time, and you will not let piles of un-repaired cars stack up in your yard, and you will keep your yard reasonably maintained?

The government does not owe me a profit on my property, nor, as you point out should not protect me against loss. The market has its own vagaries that should remain free. But neither should my neighbor be able to steal from me through neglect and willful refusal to be a good member of the community.

To turn your "move to the country" on its head -- those who wish to live with the least restriction on their property should move to the country. Those who live in closer quarters of the city should reasonably expect some laws of common benefit to protect the economic viability of the community.

Completely right, Howard, on your roll of the government. I completely agree with your belief on this point.

However, your comparison between murder and the aforementioned laws don't seem to be parallel.

I think the governments role is to protect interior and exterior evils or harms. It's a created organization by and for its people. Those 'harms or evils' come in the form of infringements of human rights. Now, like you said life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or as Locke said, 'life liberty and property'. Either or, we all have human rights that our assembled organization should protect. Such as murder.

But now, I think the tricky part is property. Is the 'unfairly depressing the value of property' a form of theft???? Yes, there is a comparison among theft, burglary and this action. That similarity is that you lose value. However, this similarity can be connected to a lot of things in life. Everything depresses and increases in value. Those depressions are not a variety of theft.

What is the paramount evil of theft and burglary? They are both infringements of human rights. 'unfairly depressing the value of property' is not. Private property is a human right. It is the social-political principle that human beings may not be prohibited or prevented by anyone from acquiring, holding and trading (with willing parties) valued items. I think that is what Locke and all of the other thinkers of the enlightenment believed. This ability is what makes life worth living. It creates motivation and inspiration which furthers in other aspects of life.

I do have to admit, you articulate amazingly well and you're point is completely valid. Our behavioral carrots are not the same, and we just view the sanctity of property differently. I hope you see my 'view' on this side of the fence.

Great Comments. One only need to drive down main street and while waiting at any of the many lights, look around and notice how many of our buildings are now becoming vacant. It's starting to look like Niagara Falls(American Side). I suspect that the properties will deteriorate as time passes and nothing moves into the vacancies. (Great time to invest in Plywood)One can only wonder if the city council will be as aggressive on enforcement of any new codes further down the road. Without an overhaul of government in Albany,(and Washington) Business in this state and nation are at a huge disadvantage, and generally locate elsewhere.

The vast majority of store fronts on Main Street have active, thriving businesses. There are relatively few vacancies. And I happen to know that several of the vacant spots have possible tenants considering the spaces.

Maybe he's talking about LeRoy.the ones that aren't vacant seem to constantly be changing tenants.