Sept. 2, 2014 |
° Fair with Haze
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
I find it amusing that there are MANY MANY empty rental properties, yet, we need 5 more employees to an EXPANDED rental registration program and yet a single lone employee for an entire citywide curbside recycling program.
You missed the point there Captain Facts, but hey, thanks for sharing!
even more interesting...why is there a rental registration program in the first place?
Because landlords, left alone, will often not live up to their responsibilities.
Change the word "landlords" to "people" and you've hit the nail on the head. Now shall we have a government run program to check up on everyone, making certain they are living up to their responsibilities? At what cost?
Well, we have a variety of such programs already, as well as laws. Do you think we shouldn't have agencies to protect children from negligent/abusive/deadbeat parents? What attempts to ensure people live up to their responsibilities would you eliminate?
Do you disagree with a rental registration/inspection program, and if so, why?
Yes, we have agencies to protect children from negligence, abuse, deadbeats, etc. We also have agencies that deal with spousal abuse, rape, etc., all these things meeting your previous concerns that they are problems that go underreported. However, all of the problems are investigated by the appropriate government entity upon a report being made. That's different than what you have often advocated for, that a government cast a net so wide that they will ensnare bad landlords, good landlords and all those in between. And you want to charge them for the pleasure.
You mentioned protecting children, do you think the government ought to investigate whether or not I've been abusive to my child, in the absence of any report indicating that possibility? Should the government investigate whether or not you abuse your spouse, again, with no indication at all that it's happening?
You'd have a better argument if you mentioned things like a restaurant that gets inspected by the health dept. But here's the difference, I can include that cost in the costs of doing business. I can take a smaller profit, lower wages to my staff, raise prices to my customers, etc. But if the health dept. comes calling often, and they bring with them an inspector to look at my electrical, plumbing, building structure, ADA, etc., there will come a time when I will no longer be able to pass on those costs. I'll go out of business. So we strike a balance. I'm checked, sometimes. But not too often to make the whole process onerous.
Isn't that what we have now, a balance? We have a process where an investigation will happen upon receipt of a complaint.
I've mentioned before, sometimes, we implement policies hoping for certain outcomes, only to have the opposite happen. Rent control in S.F. was intended to keep rents low so lower income people could remain in their apartments. But it became so onerous that landlords simply took their units off the market. A lower supply led to high rents with lower income people being displaced. What will happen if landlords pass on the costs? Will some very low income folks be displaced? Will some very sketchy units be taken off the market, driving down supply and driving up prices?
One problem you aren't thinking about is that there are some people barely able to hold on to housing. They're just one step up from the shelter, and one slip away from being homeless again. These are the very people who might be able to afford those sketchy units, but not be able to afford that same units after improvements are made and the costs passed on, nor can they afford other improved units. They are the ones most at risk.
In the case of rental units, I find a preventive program the best option, for a number of reasons.
One, tenants are often not well informed about landlord responsibilities. Two, even if they are, they may very understandably be shy about calling the city on their landlord, as they are dependent on them for references if they move. Good landlords have nothing to fear from the program, so should have no real reason to complain about it. Especially since, as you mention, they will almost certainly pass on the costs (minimal as they may be).
Your health dept example is a good one - instead of waiting until people get sick and or die from bad food practices, we have a preventive system in place. Which, by the way, isn't strict enough, in my opinion, since many local restaurants have numerous "critical violations".
How do you do on your inspections, if you're willing to share that?
Let's see - if random preventive investigations reduced child and/or spousal abuse, I'd have to think about it, but might well be in favor of it. People doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear. Isn't that your argument for letting the police look in your trunk randomly? Of course, we may have some constitutional issues there.
Very low income folks on the edge are a concern, but I'm sure we could find a way to ensure they don't fall into the chasm if we want to do that.
More taxes! Sweet...
Mike Denver looks like a plotting, evil genius in the homepage photo ...
Kind of a smug "I'm better than you"look.
So much for trying to draw in the retiree's!! Plus running off what retirede's we have now. Good job Lawrence!
Maybe the citizens of Lawrenec need to find a new leadership as this one is not working! They seem to think money grows on trees!
Yesterday I was questioning line items for the Rock Chalk Park & was given the link to the city's full budget in pdf version. I do see line items budgeted, however they seem pretty vague. When do we get to see a real plan outlined as to how we are going to use, manage, & market our Rec Center as it has been sold to us? How are we going to get this thing off the ground & make it work. If we are already committed to this, & have already broken ground, one would assume there is a grand plan somewhere right? Right?
The only growth here is the spending and debt. There will be no economic growth from this budget. Increasing the cost of living in the community will not attract businesses that will bring jobs and revenue from outside the city.
Agree. I realize that it takes money to make money, & that taxes are a must to provide essential services to the taxed masses, but somewhere fiscal responsibility & REALITY should come into play. The cost of living in Lawrence keeps increasing, yet the benefits are not very tangible. I love living in Lawrence, but for the price-tag I might as well live in a community that is worth the cost.
I think the appropriate term is "Don't let the door hit you…"
"...when its open & someone is closing it, & watch your fingers cause they might get smashed & it might hurt causing you to lose dexterity at work?" Yeah, im familiar with that age old phrase. Has a nice ring to it.
At the rate of a whopping dollar a month your sofa might be the first place to look.
We're already spending that extra change for all the "special sales tax districts," the increase in water and sewage fees, new trash containers, higher electric and gas fees, etc., etc., we're being nickeled and dimed to death. It may seem like only a slight increase, but it all adds up over time.
All public works projects. You know when you're relying on public projects to fuel "growth" you're really just delaying the inevitable.
hey folks, get out the check books, after all it is all about the kids and arts
what could be a better to spend your money ?
Actually, it looks like sewers and streets and western expansion
I am certain the city commissioners and city manager are not paying attention to the economic environment on the state, federal, and international levels. We are on pace to become bankrupt in the long-term.
Sure, the city might be bankrupt in a few years, but we're going to have a sweet new indoor facility where we can play bad mitten without having to wait in line for 5 minutes like we used to.
Well, I doubt that increasing the costs of living in Lawrence will attract more people.
And, of course, I question whether or not that's desirable. There are studies showing that areas that increase population more quickly actually perform worse economically in a variety of ways than slower growing areas.
What studies? Have you lived anywhere else? I can tell you from experience that if a city stifles growth, businesses and talent will leave, leaving the community with lower paying jobs and only those that can't afford to leave (i.e. Detroit).
A quick google search should find it - that's how I found it.
I grew up in NYC, lived in Chicago for about 10 years, and have lived in a number of other towns across the country.
The "grow or die"mentality is common but misguided, in my opinion. It may be true of small towns in which an aging population is dying off, and young folks leaving, but that's hardly analogous to a college town like Lawrence, or many other towns.
Even a rather conservative acquaintance and I were able to quickly agree that continued growth is not a uniformly positive thing (and that's true of very few subjects).
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·