Where’s The Beep?

by Paul Bass | March 28, 2006 5:45 PM | | Comments (7)

On the first day of an ambitious new citywide inspection effort, LCI’s Rafael Ramos (above) discovered that the smoke alarm needed a new battery in a first-floor apartment at 80 Howe St. “Am I supposed to check that?” asked the tenant, Christine Oh.

Yes she is. But the inspection Ramos conducted had more to do with what her landlord’s supposed to in keeping apartments up to code.

Oh welcomed a train of city officials and reporters into her apartment as the city’s Livable City Initiative (LCI) unveiled its new inspection program. The program requires inspections of all non-owner-occupied apartments in town in buildings with at least two units. Landlords will pay between $75 and $375 for a two-year license, depending on the size of their buildings. That money will pay for the inspections.

LCI Chief Andrew Rizzo (shown speaking at a press conference in front of a wall map of the world in 80 Howe’s lobby) said he expects his six inspectors to get to all 20,000 apartments affected within two years. He said that’ll come to about seven units inspected a day per inspector. 80 Howe alone has 72 units and requires a few hours to inspect, he said.

Rizzo’s crew led the media entourage on a tour of the first round of inspections in the building. They chose a building in good shape, although Ramos did have to fail the apartment rented by Mallika Okert (in photo) when he found water running continually in the bathroom.

That didn’t fluster landlord Matthew Short. The law gives him 30 days to fix problems before $100 a day fines kick in.

Some landlords opposed the creation of the program. They argued that since most of them do a good job, the city should leave them alone. They said the city should respond to complaints, period. A citywide landlord group has announced it’s filing a lawsuit to stop the program. (Click here to read a story about that in the Register.) But officials worried about immigrants who fear reporting problems in fear of retribution by landlords. Also, some of the original architects of the program saw it as a way of improving housing conditions in town without gentrification that raises rents.

Landlord Short (pictured) welcomed the program. “The health and safety of city residents should” come first he said. “A rising tide raises all boats. It’s irresponsible to say we shouldn’t be proactive in providing safety.” He also noted that the biannual fee comes out to hardly any money per unit per month.

Even though it’s technically the responsibility of tenants like Christine Oh to check their smoke alarms, LCI’s inspectors are carrying 9 volt batteries with them. When the crowd left her apartment Tuesday, a beep could be heard from Oh’s ceiling once more.







Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: Joe Landlord | March 28, 2006 7:05 PM

Hey! I went to get a Certificate of Occupancy for my six-family apartment house, and they made me put in hard-wired smoke detectors. And this seemingly connected, big-time landlord doesn't have to hard-wire his building! I just don't get it.

The problem with housing inspection is selective enforcement. If they don't like you, they throw the book at you. If you donate to the Mayor's campaign, they give you a pass.

Plus, most of the illegal units in New Haven are in the basements and attics of owner-occupied multies. Why don't they put up a $500 reward for each illegal unit. That would solve the problem quickly.

Posted by: new havener | March 28, 2006 7:45 PM

What a huge invasion of privacy. When is big brother going to end? I'm a homeowner, so right now I don't have to worry about these folks knocking on my door. But I'm sure it is only a matter of time before the city decides that they want to hire 10 more people for John's gubnatorial campaign, and they decide to expand it to homeowners. Just try to get in my house, line up behind the vacuum cleaner salespeople and Jehovah Witnesses, because I'm not letting any of them in.

Posted by: Esteban | March 29, 2006 9:13 AM

Building X has immigrant workers (probably illegal) living in it. Building X would never pass inspection without major expensive repairs. After failing inspection, Building X's owner will have to sell because he does not have the money to make the repairs. Net result: homeless immigrants.

Aside from this real scenario, the new inspectioin laws will lower the value of income property in New Haven and raise the value of income property in the suburbs, where inspection ordinances are nonexistent or not as stringent.

And most importantly, as previously mentioned, the biggest problems exist in owner occupied buildings which are evidently exempt.

I"m a landlord myself, but I actually have mixed feelings about the new laws. Available housing will decline in New Haven's already tight market as more units go offline for major renovations or abandonment. This will increase demand for housing which will allow landlords to raise already high rents. My units all have certificates of occupancy and will easily pass inspection. In the end, I'll make more money. Thanks!

Posted by: Joe Architect | March 29, 2006 1:06 PM

To Joe Landlord,

There's no conspiracy behind the discrepancey you pointed out. The Building Code which is compiled by construction professinal organizations, legislated into law by the State and adopted by towns requires that new construction with as many units as you have, instal hard wired smoke detectors. Older properties are grandfathered in unless there is a significant renovation.

Joe Architect

Posted by: Joe Landlord | March 29, 2006 6:14 PM

Yeah, well mine wasn't new construction. My insurance company wanted me to get a Certificate of Occupancy, (which every building in New Haven should have, to legally charge rent), which I was happy to do.

However, when I brought the Fire Inspectors through, they became very arbitrary. One said do this, (hard-wired in the stairways battery units inside the apartments). After I did that, the next one said, no, even inside the apartments the detectors had to be hard-wired.

It was exceedingly frustrating, and the whole time I felt like an envelope with a couple hundred bucks would have made the whole thing go away. (my feeling, who knows the truth.)

Again, I feel the inspection process will become arbitrary and political, and that those who fall in line behind the Mayor will get favorable treatment.

The bad landlords should be targeted, but this was an idiotic way to go about it.

Posted by: Joe Architect | March 30, 2006 12:57 PM

Dear Joe Landlord,

Your situation sounds unique, however your treatment by city officials does sound arbitrary. If you would like a clearer authroritative interpretation of the State Building Code, I advise you to contact the State Building Inspector (name and number listed below). If you would like an official judgement, you should submit your issue to him clearly and concisely in written form...otherwise just give him a call; hes a decent fellow.

Christopher R. Laux, A.I.A
State Building Inspector
Office of State Building Inspector
PH: (860) 685-8310

Posted by: sparks | July 8, 2006 3:47 AM

Aside from the other comments about the City's rental apartment licensing program, I have several to add.
IT ISN'T LEGAL. State statures under Title 7, known as "home rule", limit what towns can license to only the businesses specified by the state. Residential rental apartments are not businesses per the state statutes. Also the City's "Administrative warrant" provision that will attempt to force tenants to open their doors for inspections, is probably unconstitutional.

The Greater New Haven Property Owners Association (of which I'm a member) has begun a lawsuit against the City to block this ordinance. We'll see what happens....

Sparks

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35