Enforcement

To the editor:

“Rental code enforcement leaves much to be desired” (Journal-World, Sept. 26) is the most understated headline I’ve seen in a long time. It portrays fairly accurately the way the city fails to enforce its basic ordinance. There are a few other points to be made.

One is that the ordinance should have a limit of two unrelated people per house in single-family neighborhoods. However, it was made three, allegedly so that unmarried couples who need it might have live-in help. That sounds plausible, but then they added another exception: If you have a partition put in or otherwise separate off a living area, you can add a fourth. Now you get hundreds of dollars per month more for a little plywood and paint. I am inclined to think we see Chamber tracks here.

Enforcement is a joke. You’d think that the same cars parked there month after month would be evidence of a violation, but no, “they might be visiting.”

The nonenforcement is not entirely the fault of the relevant city staff. They have been boxed in by the overly lax regulations set up by the City Commission and the legal opinions and judgments that are an obstacle to any meaningful zoning.

Residents of allegedly single-family neighborhoods care about occupancy because of issues of available parking, housing maintenance, noise, trash strewn around and other related issues. I am not optimistic that we will ever see any enforcement, because there is too much money to be made from the existing situation.

Adrian Melott,

Lawrence