The sad thing about the sad state of some neighborhoods is the lack of the Slum Lord control law the city almost passed. This local law was ready to be passed when Frank Ferrando and the Republicans had it “tabled”. Now three years later, they still keep it “tabled”. I listened to Councilman Tim Buckley on WBTA expressing his supposed concern over absentee landlords and run down homes, but not once since he was elected did he ask that the Slum Lord law be call back for a vote. Mr. Buckley, if you are really concerned, demand that the tabled local law be voted on. Three years is long enough to hide a vote on this.

John: It's nice to say "Slum Lord control law," but what is actually contained in such a law. Maybe it was tabled for good reasons. I don't know. Can you provide us with some more information about the law?

There are state laws that do basically the same thing and the city has started using them this year. All these state laws have two edges to them.

One of the purposes of these laws is to make sure that tenants are living in safe homes and their landlords are maintaining them. The problem is when a landlord won’t respond, good tenants are forced out of their homes. People who paid their rent on time and do everything they can to keep a roof over their kids heads find themselves scrambling to provide a home for their families. The city only uses this type of law when tenants are in danger.

Another purpose of these types of laws is to help good landlords get drug dealers out of their homes. Landlords face high costs to do the right thing and need help sometimes. The city police and code departments are aware of these laws and will use them when the need arises.

The local law would have had teeth to require land lords to keep up their property. Frank Ferrando and Chris Fix had a meeting with the landlords at City Hall, that was not open to the public. When they came out, one was quoted by the Daily News as saying they got what they wanted. nobody knows what that was. Then the local law was tabled. The public was told the wording needed a bit of work and that the city attorney was going to look it over. Then we were told it was given to some committee. Either way, bring it back up for a up or down vote.

You do not "table" something for years. I have spoken at Council meetings asking this to be brought back up, but they refuse. Why are they scared?

John: I asked for a copy of this proposal from the city. I received "Ordinance #9-2005" from the office of the city clerk. The ordinance is entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BATAVIA TO INCLUDE CHAPTER 122 ENTITLED “PUBLIC NUISANCE”. Is this the document to which you refer? If so, I was told it was not "tabled," but that the ordinance "failed."

I plan to get up more about this failed ordinance later today or tomorrow.

You would have to ask for the minutes where it "failed". If it 'failed", when did that vote take place? What happened to the one that was "tabled' at a regular City Council meeting? This sounds interesting. Maybe Mr. Mallow or Council member Ferrando, who had to tabeled, can give you an answer.

After all this time, and my appearing at Council meetings asking about this, I was never once told it "failed". By the way, what is "failed"? What does that mean ?

I've got a request out to Frank Ferrando to say why the proposal failed. As for what "failed" means, I assume it means voted down. This law, I am told, "failed at a Council business meeting on December 12, 2005."

I was at the meeting when it was tabled. The reason was so the City Attorney could go over it and clean it up a bit. later, Charlie Mallow told me it had been sent to a committee to be looked at.

Earlier this year, again, I spoke at a council meeting asking that this local law be brought back up for a vote. I also asked the the Ethics Board either be filled or done away with.

Not one Council member, not one, said the "Public Nuisance" law had failed (it really is a slum lord control law). Funny, Charlie and I talked about this earlier this week and he didn't say it was dead. I just spoke with another
council member who does not remember it failing, just tabled.

Sounds like a shell game to me.

This is an easy one. It was tabled a few years ago and never added back to an agenda. Council then sent the issue to the Neighborhood Improvement Committee. The NIC with the help of our police, code enforcement, Rochester’s Neighborhood task force and Rosemary Christian uncovered some state laws that are already in effect. Those state laws are being used by the city right now to handle these problems. There have been at least two instances this year where homes have been closed up do to code issues. There was no need to recreate the wheel with another local law that the city would have to defend in court.

I understand exactly where John is coming from and we have talked about neighborhood problems and solutions over and over again over the last few years. John is afraid that the old ways of covering up neighborhood problems will come back.

Let me make this real clear. The source of most of our neighborhood issues was a complete lack of enforcement, not the laws we have on the books. There really was no one on the job doing the work for the last two or three years. When an issue came up, they would just pull someone from their regular job duties and send them over to check out an issue. There was no one really assigned to do the work.

During last year’s budget we shifted positions around so that there could be someone who could handle enforcement without adding costs on to the taxpayers. We will be bringing on a person shortly and they will be working these issues full time in the near future. This year the city staff worked their tails off to put a large dent in the problem, help is on the way for them and our neighborhoods and we are going to start combating these problems in an efficient, cost effective way.

Then way did the city tell Philip it "failed" at a business meeting on 12/12/08?
If "tabled", why not bring back up and pull it?
Why leave it undone?
Would our local law have more teeth?

I can name a few dozen people who are or will be unemployed shortly who are more than capable of tooling around the city on a bike with a digital camera snapping pics of unmowed lawns or half painted houses, car up on blocks, rotten porch steps, ...
How hard is it to enforce the codes?
A few highly publicized cases would go a long way in thinning the herd of lazy renters and homeowners.