Today's Feature
Liquor
Meeting Tonight.
The City Council Public Safety
Committee is scheduled to consider and discuss an
ordinance concerning the weekday and Sunday sale
of liquor by the drink by restaurants. Jim
Anderson of the Missouri Division of Liquor
Control has been invited to the meeting and is
expected. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. in
the Fire Station.
Anderson is expected to clarify
the State regulations and answer questions
concerning their enforcement.
A restraining order was issued
by the Jasper County Circuit Court over a week
ago that keeps the City from enforcing its
current ordinance forbidding Sunday sales.
If the Committee approves a
recommendation to the Council, the proposed
Council bill would see first reading during the
February 27 Council meeting.
According to the City Charter,
a bill must go through two readings at two
separate Council meetings unless it is advanced
by the Council. If the bill carries emergency
language it requires the approval of two-thirds
of the Council, or seven members. Without the
language a unanimous vote is required to advance
to second reading.
Commentary
Martin
"Bubs" Hohulin
State Representative, District 126
I believe in giving credit
where credit is due. Not all dumb ideas come from
the other side of the aisle. Apparently neither
side has a monopoly on wanting to regulate every
human (and some non human) endeavors.
There has been a bill
introduced in the Senate to regulate hayrides. I
am not making this up. The bill is in response to
an accident that happened over in St. Louis.
There was an accident and one girl was killed and
several were injured. While there is no question
that it is always a horrible tragedy to lose a
child and that my sympathies are with the
families, the answer is not to regulate
everything. We simply cannot and should not try
to protect everybody from everything. There are
risks in every aspect of life, from taking a
shower to riding bulls.
The legislation has been
proposed by a St. Louis republican Senator. In
all fairness, her bill only affects commercial
hayride operators, but I have been here long
enough to realize that sooner or later, (usually
sooner rather than later) regulations that start
off only affecting one specific area end up
covering everyone.
The bill contains penalty
provisions up to a misdemeanor and would put the
Dept. of Public Safety in charge of the
regulations. I am sure that many of you reading
this column have been on hay rides. I imagine
that most of you remember them with fond
memories. What eventually happens when we try to
regulate something is that we eventually change
the product so much that it is unrecognizable, or
we eliminate it altogether. We have become such a
sue happy society and one where we perpetuate the
victim mentality, that we have either seen many
activities changed, or due to the liability
insurance premiums, have priced the activities
out of reach. Look at what has happened to the
price of ski lift the last few years.
As I have said before, losing a
family member or friend is a terrible tragedy and
one that wouldn’t be wished on anyone. A
knee jerk reaction looking for a solution from
Jefferson City or Washington D.C. will only
serves to make matters worse.
As usual, I can be reached at
House Post Office, State Capitol, Jefferson City,
MO 65101, or 1-800-878-7126, or
mhohulin@services.state.mo.us for your questions,
comments, or advice.
Letter to the Editor
Opinions
expressed reflect those of the writer
and not necessarily those of the Mornin' Mail.
My name is Trisha Burgi and my
husband Mark Brewer and I own rental houses. We
have personally been negatively impacted by the
Carthage BOCA property maintenance code. As a
result of our personal experiences with City
Engineering we want to try to explain to the
public and the entire city council the intent of
this code as defined by the code itself, and some
examples of how this code has actually been
implemented in Carthage.
First, for those of you who
have not read the BOCA property maintenance code,
the intent of the code as defined in section
101.3 is "this code.....is to ensure public
health, safety and welfare....." The scope
of the code is defined in section 101.2 to apply
to ".....owner, operators, and
occupants" equally. Further the new code
specifies in section 111.1 that ".....the
strict application of any requirement of this
code shall not.....cause undue hardship."
Based on these definitions of the BOCA property
maintenance code there are many property owners
who believe the code has been and is presently
being unfairly enforced.
We have listened to the
Engineering Department’s presentation in
city council meetings and the news media with
interest. Granted the problems presented are all
problems that need to be addressed in this city
yet we believe the public is hearing only one
narrow side of a very complex issue. Many
property owners in Carthage believe a BOCA
property maintenance code is needed but the
present administration of the code appears to
have many unresolved problems. City engineering
has suggested that only a few property owners are
complaining yet in reality many property owners
are scared to vocalize their concerns for fear of
retaliation from City Engineering.
The present City Engineering
Department has a problem with what appears to be
selective enforcement. After reviewing 159 closed
property maintenance files not one case was filed
against a tenant-occupant yet the code specifies
the responsibility of the occupant at least 8
times.
Why isn’t the code
enforced against tenant-occupant damages before
requiring owners to repair damages directly
caused by tenants? Why can’t we depend on
local law enforcement to protect our property?
Last year, for example, we had
a problem with a renter who had junked out the
backyard with old tires, appliances and had not
mowed.
As a former council member
aware of the code I called a city official for
assistance in resolving the matter. Three days
later we, as the legal owners, got a ticket in
the mail. In calling to discuss we were informed
that it was our responsibility to clean up the
property. Obviously until the present city
enforcement philosophy changes we won’t ever
call the city for assistance again. If the BOCA
property maintenance code was equally enforced by
citing the occupant first before the owner, most
of the property owners concerned with present
administration of the present code would be very
supportive of the code.
Why hasn’t the city used
the authority authorized by the BOCA property
maintenance code to help property owners? At a
previous meeting when we complained about this
situation it was suggested by one council member
to just evict the tenants if they destroyed our
property.
Apparently what City
Engineering does not understand is that once the
damage is done if we evict the tenants then we
have a major repair problem, i.e. sheetrock,
broken windows and carpet, and the tenants just
move down the street to the next landlord to do
the same damage all over again. We cannot collect
a $3,000 deposit to protect our property. We must
try to recover our losses by keeping that tenant
who does not pay his rent long enough to repair
the damages.
Lifestyle behavior cannot be
legislated by penalizing the property owners.
Only through penalizing the responsible party
will the situation in Carthage ever change. If
the city will review the complaints filed by
tenants I would postulate that 99% of all tenants
generated complaints resulted only after the
tenant became past due on the rent and was facing
eviction. The city needs to equally enforce the
laws on the books and help us protect our
property by citing tenants who destroy our
property with criminal charges.
Further examination of city
engineering’s philosophy reveals a lack of
cooperation between city officials and city
residents.
Since the formation of this
group of property owners, we have seen the
following: delays and avoidance in opening public
records as guaranteed by the Sunshine Law;
trespassing on private property without
permission either from tenant or owner;
noncompliance of the present code through proper
noticing of the owner’s rights; and
selective enforcement of the present code. To
date city engineering has refused to allow us to
review open engineering files, again this appears
to be a violation of the Sunshine Law.
Many of the engineering
department’s present policies also have
little regard for the negative financial impact
on the property owners as a result of their
actions. This also appears to be a violation of
the intent of the code as defined by the code
itself. The apparent lack of regard for the
negative financial impact to the property owners
is another reason why so many property owners are
upset. We are aware of a condemnation which has
forced an owner into a severe financial crisis.
These problems experienced as a
result of the present departmental philosophy
have been substantiated by many property owners
and unfortunately if satisfactory negotiations
are not resolved soon will probably be resolved
through the court system.
We must create a more balanced
system of enforcement by developing a spirit of
cooperation. We want to work with the city to
keep the city a safe and healthy place to live.
Yet, the present engineering department must
remember Carthage is an old town with many lower
economic properties built before today’s
present building codes were implemented. The city
cannot fairly enforce code violations on private
residents before getting their own house in
order. City owned property must first be brought
up to minimum BOCA property maintenance code
standards. Like city owned properties, many
privately owned properties are experiencing much
higher levels of property destruction by tenants
and vandals.
Carthage presently has social
problems, lack of education, low paying jobs, and
language problems all which contribute to a
vicious cycle of property maintenance problems.
Engineering can begin by encouraging property
owners and occupants to take pride in their
property. Why not assist city residents by
focusing on writing grants for building repairs?
City engineering this year to
date has not written one grant to our knowledge
to help repair these properties. And this year to
date the only grant received has been written by
Economic Security not City engineering. This
grant alone will only address a few residences,
when in Carthage several thousand residences need
repairs. Why not refocus on the department
priorities from enforcement to assistance in
completing repairs? Why not prioritize current
property maintenance code violations? Why not
equally enforce the code on occupants as well as
owners? The City Engineering Department and
property owners need to come to the table in a
spirit of cooperation instead of confrontation
and resolve the current problems in the
philosophy of code administration.
It is time for the city to be a
part of the solution instead of part of the
problem. We must begin to work together today to
address these problems in an organized impartial
nondefensive manner.
Thank you,
Trisha Burgi and Mark Brewer
|
