And I've turned inside out and 'round about and back and then,
Found myself right back where I started again.
--Jim Croce, “Age”
Can you tear a rotator cuff by shrugging?
----
Spin it any way you like. Point selectively to one ordinance rather than another. Advocate starving an arm of government even while you’re criticizing it for underperformance. Repeat trite homilies so often that even your dog turns tail and runs for cover. Try to square as many circles as you please – go on; no one’s counting, primarily because no one ever learned to count. Transform personal grievances into relentless crusades. Change the subject. Howl at the moon. Pretend you’re a college professor. Switch personalities the way some people change ball caps.
It’s all immensely entertaining to me. Now, sweep all the subterfuge and evasions aside, and the fundamental questions still remain:
Why does the city of New Albany have such difficulties enforcing its own laws?
Why does a culture of ownership mean so little to so many who steadfastly (and hypocritically) claim to believe in market-based, democratic precepts?
Why is it so difficult to grasp that New Urbanism is little more than leveraging usable existing resources to create greater opportunities for greater numbers?
Is there something we’ve missed in the evolution of New Albany, beyond the obvious fact that anti-intellectualism is the only true religion that unites disparate elements within the city’s gates?
----
It can’t be denied that at some point in the dim and distant past, the community deemed it fitting and proper to provide a regulatory regime for its housing stock. If this were not so, there would be no pertinent codes on the city’s books, and yet they’re right there.
Evidently the community is – or at least was – in agreement on this point.
Notwithstanding the devil’s advocacy of a relative few who somehow smell the stench of elitism in the impossibly radical notion that rule of law might constitute some form of a level playing field, it would appear that these building and housing codes amount to commonly agreed-upon standards, and as such, they pertain to minimum considerations of safety on behalf of all, but especially those, like children, who are most in need of protection.
Significantly, such standards also are a cost of doing business for those seeking to rent housing space to others.
However, seeing that a rule of bathos continues to define everyday political life in New Albany, it has been apparent for years, perhaps decades, that the city has chosen to abdicate significant portions of its responsibility to enforce these standards. The practical consequences of such negligence are horrid, they are damning to the legacies of those who have aided and abetted it, and only the blindly disingenuous among us have failed to note them.
Not only has the city’s housing stock deteriorated, with commensurate damage to the efforts of current and future generations to preserve the city’s viability, but the cynical and seemingly perpetual abandonment of the poor and the powerless to vicious recurring cycles of vastly reduced health, safety and hope have contributed immeasurably to an abysmally wretched civic reputation that unfortunately has been fully earned.
If all that were not sufficient for compensatory show trials to begin immediately, this historical abandonment of enforcement, and our persistent neglect of standards, has in reality amounted to an indirect subsidy for rental property owners, one that reduces the cost of doing business as a landlord. Whether such a situation increases the owner’s profit margin is a scenario that readers may contemplate on their own time, but I don’t believe it is far-fetched.
Given the prevalence of federally subsided housing, ineffective or infrequent HUD inspections might constitute yet another indirect subsidy of this purportedly “market-based” system of warehousing people. Whether or not this is the case is for others to determine, but the central point remains: Indirect subsidies that result from a relaxation of accepted standards surely reduce some costs for rental property owners, but at an unfairly high price for the city as a whole.
It is my contention that subsidies might be deployed in a far more productive fashion.
Just about everyone, occupying all sides of this and other issues, agree that while rental property always will be a fact of life, and in fact should be a fact of life, the community is better off as a whole when more people own their homes.
Rather than the indirect subsidy given rental property owners when standards are not enforced, which we can reasonably infer does much to enable the less functional aspects of neighborhoods filled to the brim with rental properties, doesn’t it make more sense to enable home ownership through any measure possible? Indirect subsidies, direct subsidies – whatever and whenever possible. Shouldn’t we seek to enable a culture of ownership?
Americans seldom grasp satire, but disingenuousness would seem to be a birthright. The "market forces" referred to earlier this week by commentators like Knighttrain currently aren't "free market" at all, any more than exurban sprawl represents a “free market,” because we all subsidize that particular “free market” mechanism, too. Don't we have both a right and an obligation to examine the myriad ways that direct and indirect subsidies provide for both the continued exploitation of the underprivileged by unregulated landlords, and inflict ever greater individual expense to prop up widened public services in expanding exurban areas?
Why aren't we demanding a "full investigation" of these incredibly expensive phenomenons?
Ah, politics in spring. As we’ve seen throughout this week’s threads, there are many – my 3rd district Uncouncilman almost certainly foremost among them – who will shamelessly seek to transform this issue of a truly civil society's basic community standards into a completely different (and self-aggrandizing) tug-of-war touting have-nots vs. haves, us vs. them, and little people vs. elitists. It's simply not true.
It isn't elitist to seek economic development that makes the pie bigger for all.
It isn't elitist to suggest that we directly subsidize home ownership rather than indirectly subsidize exploitation.
It isn't elitist to posit that without investing in the future of the community, there is little hope of the community’s future.
Elitism? That dog won’t hunt, and at least some of you know better than to imagine that it might. If you’re looking to defend the indefensible, you’re going to have to come up with something stronger than populist blather.
Right, Steve?
I will do my best to field some answers to your questions, and I apologize if my insatiable taste for progressive blood has tainted my ability to engage in a meaningful two way dialog regarding these issues.
ReplyDelete1.)Why does the city of New Albany have such difficulties enforcing its own laws?
My best guess as to this issue would be two parts, first and foremost being for seemingly decades the sewage issue of this city has sucked dry any an all funding that could have been used for neighborhood enhancement and protection measures.
And secondly, there has been a definite lack of community wide interest in tackling this problem before it snuck up and bit everybody in the (deleted expletive). We experienced a long period when the housing market was so hot, if you had a problem in your neighborhood, put the house on the market, and it would sell quickly. That market has cooled, and existing homes are sitting on the market for much longer times, at a smaller profit level. BUT during the boom, those seeking “investment properties” made a killing, getting inner city houses on the cheap, with almost non-existent ordinance enforcement during that period, as a business stance, it was easy to pick up a house for $40 to $60k, turn around and rent it for $500 to $550 per month, with little or no effort made in correcting existing problems. People could make about $200 per month per property over any mortgage on the home. Business is business, and less expenditure for higher profits is what makes the business world go round.
So it would be my guess that everything appeared in the surface to be well and good, and with multi-million dollar federal fines hanging over our collective heads, the $40 tall grass fine over on market street took a back seat, after a while, it became the norm. Citizens adopted the attitude of what good will it do to call, I did all I can do by calling once, and nothing was done, and now the violations have become so deep that the city may in fact be scared to act out of fear of opening Pandora’s box, and with out a full time city attorney, or city court to pursue it to a satisfactory conclusion, I think the government had also adopted to attitude of what can I do, I all ready left a notice.
Why does a culture of ownership mean so little to so many who steadfastly (and hypocritically) claim to believe in market-based, democratic precepts?
A culture of ownership is damaging to the deeply entrenched rental property monopoly in our city. Home Owners are more critical by nature, as a way of protecting the biggest investment most will ever make. The more owner occupied homes in a neighborhood, the more critical that area will be of code violations, parking, noise, trash, and the appearances of illicit activities, whether real or imagined. If questions are raised, and complaints increase, the city ahs no choice but to look into to, when they find substantial basis for action and call on the questionable properties to be fixed, cleaned up or what have you, this represents a cost to the rental property owners, which in turn lowers the profit levels, which, in the eyes of strictly business, is bad business. I just do not understand this notion myself, one would think they would realize the better the area, the higher the rent, which means more profit in the long run, when you can take that $500 per month rental, and bump it up to $600 or $650 because it is in a desirable neighborhood.
Why is it so difficult to grasp that New Urbanism is little more than leveraging usable existing resources to create greater opportunities for greater numbers?
Newest, latest, greatest. Developers evidently have a hard time looking at an established area and being able to a definitive vision of a complete community with in a community. All the rage now is town homes and condos, every square foot of vacant land is being filled with these faster than heavy traffic can create pot holes in our streets.
In a society that is obsessed with schedules and deadlines, SUV’s, and surpassing the Jones’s, a community that is self supporting with in a community, where everything you need is in walking distance is an alien to the mainstream public and developers as mega malls were to our society in the 50’s and 60’s where mom and pop neighborhood stores was the rule or thumb.
Is there something we’ve missed in the evolution of New Albany, beyond the obvious fact that anti-intellectualism is the only true religion that unites disparate elements within the city’s gates?
There are a lot of people who still believe that New Albany is still that 50’s and 60’s mom and pop store, quintessential Main Street USA town. And we missed the bus on several occasions, when we were able to leave that ideology behind and progress forward with the changing times. To the best of my knowledge, they had originally tried to put River Falls Mall in NA, no go. We missed the bus on the boat, but we want our slice of that pie because the traffic cuts through our town.
There is too much complacency in electing our government, name recognition means more that a progressive record, and until this year it seemed our political pool had become stagnated, and along with that stagnation, progression was stalled as well. You can not move forward with the same leaders who’s agenda’s were cutting edge 10 and 20 years ago, but have not evolved with the times.
I am still fairly new on the scene here, but it seems that the community in general is finally starting to move from a not in my backyard, my problem is more important than your problem, to a tightening group of Not in my community, your problem is my problem, we are in this together.
We are starting to realize an awakening of inter-agency, inter-neighborhood cooperation, and the continuance of this is paramount if we as a city are to overcome any of the hurdles which have been tripping us repeatedly when we try to progress as the rest of the region progresses around us. I think we are starting to move away from wanting our slice of the regional pie, to a thought process that says, why do we want to share in their pie, when we can bake our own.
I know none of this is intellectually amazing, but that is the best I can do in my own humble opinions to answer these questions.
We offer subsidized housing in Louisville, which we own, to applicable Section 8 tenants. Louisville's Section 8 office comes in and does an inspection as to whether the apartment is up to code.
ReplyDeleteWe tend to have the most problems with Section 8 renters; but some of them are "mentally" disabled.
It comes with the territory -- weeding them out.
We believe the particular house on Main with certain reallllly baaaaddd tenants in it - no, make that we know -- the government is helping to subsidize their rent.
If you saw the apartment they live in; we are truly afraid of what might come after them because we can't conceive of anyone living in an apartment such as this.
Subsidies do need more scrutiny. There are a lot of uneducated people in this City and it's a true worry of mine...a lot can't read nor write.
Kick it around... Someone told me once in New Albany they get what the street people call a "nut check" because they took a bunch of drugs before they went in to try for that "disability" check. So.... It surely would help if maybe they imposed drug tests on these "prospective nut check" payees.
It sure is a big system out there; and isn't NA's Section Eight program personnel been reassigned and maybe there are no more vouchers available here in NA?
Can't remember the story on that one. Good topic, but I swear I feel we are all just beating a "dead horse".
The laws are on the books, simply need the right thing done by the right people who give a damn.
No one should live like some of these people starting out in life are living. But, New Albany is now known of the cheap, sub-standard rental units available; most of our customers are from Louisville.
I understand the ACLU has been contacted about one of the Housing Authority Projects because of arrests, drug convictions, etc., with these people not being removed from the subsidized housing.
And on and on and on it goes.
Thanks for letting me rant.
Thanks, KT. You've now ignored my point in successive postings over a span of two days.
ReplyDeleteI hope this doesn't signify a problem in having your bluff called.