New Haven Independent

Posted by: Wjay | August 2, 2007 6:44 PM

"The city's new citywide inspection effort finished its first year in May, meeting goals of being financially self-sufficient and inspecting over 10,000 apartments,

'A total 316 buildings failed the first inspection."

Inspecting 10K units in it's first year and only failing 316, hardly seems worth the reasoning behind the inspection program in the first place.
While it is important if only one unit was found to be a hazard, the city already had the authority to perform housing code inspections under the then existing housing code of ordinances. These results hardly justify duplicating the law and charging the landlords in order to hire extra inspection help, while the regular inspectors are off inspecting housing authority units for a hansome fee, which exceeds the fee charged to landlords under this new/old program.

"The biggest violation LCI inspectors found? Smoke detectors that had no batteries, or had been yanked from the ceiling. That's what Mazzadra, an LCI housing code enforcement officer, found when he entered 279 Humphrey St".

No smoke detectors is a high priority, but who removed the batteries in the first place? right, the tenant, and it is they who should pay for the batteries and the blocked egres and other tenant caused damages.

The city in it's zeal to announce whay they believe is a coup, use two high priced managers worth 93K and 78K/per yr. to make this special announcement. Hardly seems effective or efficient to only find 316 failures out of 10,000 inspections, while using 171K/yr. in salary to announce it!
By the way, we would like to see verification of the 10K inspections, sounds a bit much.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | August 3, 2007 9:58 AM

I suppose 316 potentially dangerous buildings is an acceptable risk then? As long as it saves landlords between $75 and $300 every two years in licensing fees. As to the 171k a year in salary, they are earning that regardless if there is a residential licensing program in place or not.

One thing that perhaps could have been made more clear is that failures are given out for the most blatant neglect and deplorable conditions. The inspectors are capable of working with landlords to avoid failures if the violations are quickly remediated.

Something to bear in mind:
A total 70 percent of the units passed on the first (pre-announced) inspection.

A total 316 buildings failed the first inspection.

There is a distinctions being made between *units* and *buildings*. Unit bieng an apartment, while building is just that, the entire building. It would have been nice, for clarity's sake, to get the total number of dwelling units and number of those that failed, as opposed to just a percentage. As it stands the reported numbers are somewhat ambiguous.

Posted by: True New Havener | August 3, 2007 10:27 AM

It seems like an important element of this program is that the inspections are pre-announced. This reflects two things: First, that the city is not trying to catch landlords in some trap. Second that many landlords almost certainly take a look at the apartments before the inspection and make improvements to ensure they pass on the first try.

This would seem to be very smart policy if the goal is to get the apartments up to code and not create big numbers of violators. Certainly if I know the city is coming, as a landlord, I would rather fix up the apartment beforehand and avoid a second inspection. Gives me a good way to stay on my toes and not let the apartment slowly deteriorate.

Last, it seems like an apartment which only had faulty smoke detectors would not count as a failure since the inspectors seems to just repair or replace the detector. So one of the biggest improvements of the program does not even count as a failure.

All in all seems like a good program.

Posted by: Taxed To Death | August 3, 2007 12:01 PM

Let's review: The city wanted these extra taxes and more staff because somebody died in a fire. At the time,the reporting was that she died because she was living in an illegal apartment. So the city wanted to crack down on all these vile landlords who are doing something illegally. According to this story, it sure sounds like she died because egress from her apartment was blocked. As a former landlord, I can tell you that if an access is blocked, it is generally not because the landlord blocks it. It's interesting to note that the city didn't find that many illegal apartments either. I'm glad the program is self-sustaining, but if this is the level of problem we have uncovered for having spent all that money and effort, it sure seems that the problem, like so many in New Haven when the mayor wants something, is exaggerated to the extreme in order to justify more taxes, more employees, and make it appear taxpayers are being served. Or to pander...i.e. Illegal Immigrant Card. That was really oversold as to the problem and what the card will do as a solution.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | August 3, 2007 6:42 PM

Taxed to Death - Lets leave the Resident Cards aside, as that is irrelevant to the residential licensing program. As is the additional taxes you mention, considering the City claims this program is self sustaining (I admit to not knowing this for certain).

The fire in which someone died living in an illegal apartment did not have anything to do with a blocked egress. It was that no one responding to the fire had any idea they was another apartment at the address because it was an illegally occupied space that the first responders had no knowledge of. If firefighters respond to a fire at a 3 family home, that is exactly what they are looking for, 3 dwelling units. If there is an illegal 4th apartment, they have no way of knowing this when responding to the call.

Posted by: Common Sense | August 3, 2007 8:39 PM

Great job by LCI, however, what about enforcement of the State Fire Safety Code and Local Fire Prevention Code that falls under the jurisdiction of the Fire Marshal's Office. How many fire inspectors do we have? Are we phasing out the fire departments responsibility for code enforcement? It sounds like the code violations are mostly fire safety related.

Posted by: question | August 5, 2007 4:28 PM

If the house has a certificate of occupancy for only two units on file, but now has three...ie infinished atticm and that unit passes the inspection, is this now a three unit building? Does the inspection process even look at legal occupancy? So simple question...which nobody will follow up on, as usual, is the city grant rental license to illegal units, based on the certificat of occupancy? Relevant question...should the house burn does zoning and city plan allow the same number of units to be built that were licensed? If so, thne is LCU reporteing the number of licensed units per building to the assessor? I see many house, with certificate of occupance as only two units, yet three exist. This situation causes undervalued houses, since the assessor only shows two units not three. Is it asking too much for LCI to send a report to the assessor. Just compare two unit building value sto three unit building values. I assume once licensed and inspected it is now deemed a legal occupancy. Are new Certificates of occupancy being issued? Is city plan and zoning approving illegal unit based on zoning, and could a house that is destroyed be reuilt to the number of licensed units. This question is very real, since lenders need to know for lendeing uses. If looked at you will find that many houses have no certificate of occupancy, or the number of units exceed the certificate on file. How is this being addressed? It could mean thousands in grand list growth. A three unit house is worth more than a two unit. Plus if the use is grandfathered does city plan allow the licensed number of units to be rebuilt. A lender needs to know this, as does the assessor. Please ask about the seamless coordination that should exist between LCI, buildng and assessment. I ask these questions because I know the answer. I just want to see if any person out there knows the extent of the problem and the fact that the program ignored this exact concern