Idle curiosity about a "no" vote.

510 Main Street; referendum's over and the sign's still up. I thought to myself, hmm, I wonder which of the FIVE apartment dwellers in this 4,000-square foot house (built in 1929) voted no -- but, maybe it's the house's owner, right?

That'd be POLO LLC, originating way out on Starlight Road. Is that still in Floyd County, or is it Clark County? Well, when I type the address into the Elevate site, I get zero hits. My assumption is Clark County.

Which means the human being listed as existing behind POLO LLC couldn't vote "no" in the first place.

But there is no human, at least at first, because the registered agent for POLO LLC is another company, NRO LLC. Ah, but yes, there's a human listed at NRO LLC. It's all public information, but if I say her name aloud, I suppose there'll be problems from the intemperate among us. By the way, there are seven POLO-owned rental properties in New Albany.

Election's over, miss.

Shall you take down the sign, or do I grab it next time I'm in the neighborhood?

Deaf Gahan's ultimate zoning bait 'n' switch: Slumlords certify themselves to be in compliance with rental property codes, then cut "thank you" checks to Gahan.

Boeing is having a bit of a problem with this notion of safety self-certification, but enough about airplanes. A few weeks ago I snapped these screenshots on social media.

Meanwhile, addressing a topic that I can't recall Deaf Gahan or his team ever once embracing publicly, Richard Florida concludes:

How Poor Americans Get Exploited by Their Landlords (CityLab)

American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods, researchers Matthew Desmond and Nathan Wilmers find.

Do the poor pay more for housing?

That’s the question at the heart, and in the title, of a detailed paper published in the American Journal of Sociology on the actual housing costs paid by Americans in low-income urban neighborhoods. Its two authors, Princeton’s Matthew Desmond—who wrote the award-winning 2016 book Evicted—and MIT’s Nathan Wilmers, track the rent burdens and levels of exploitation faced by those living in concentrated poverty. They also uncover the staggeringly high profit margins made by the landlords who own properties in these areas.

It's an election year in New Albany, and I've yet to find an instance of Mayor Jeff Gahan or any sitting city council member being asked, "What ever happened to rental property inspections?

However, City Hall's flourishing propaganda division has funded Extol Magazine and other "lifestyle" publications to run ads like this.

Hmm. Weren't rental property inspections supposed to be the crucial second phase of our revised rental property ordinance?"

New Albany rental property ordinance revised, by Jenna Esarey (March 8, 2016)

NEW ALBANY — An ordinance to regulate rental properties in New Albany was amended after a contentious city council meeting Monday.

A standing-room-only crowd packed the third-floor assembly room to voice opinions about the ordinance, which required property owners to obtain a rental permit for each property and register their contact information with the city no later than Jan. 31, 2017.

Under the ordinance, a Rental Housing Code would establish minimum maintenance standards; set the responsibilities of owners, operators and occupants of rental buildings and rental units; and provide for administration, enforcement and penalties ranging up to $2,500 for repeated infractions such as failure to obtain a rental permit or violating provisions of the code. The ordinance also called for the inspection of rental housing properties based on a complaint as permitted by ordinance and state statute.

After more than two hours of discussion, Councilman Greg Phipps, who proposed the ordinance, agreed to split the ordinance, and the amended measure, containing only the registration portion, passed unanimously. The deleted provisions will be addressed at a later date. The amended ordinance faces a third reading March 17.

A committee working on the ordinance did not have rental property owners or renters as members, but a news release from New Albany Mayor Jeff Gahan’s office indicated an unidentified real estate agent served as an adviser.

“I’m pleased to hear that the City of New Albany is moving forward by passing legislation to require rental registration for all rental properties within the city limits," said Gahan in a news release following the meeting. "Rental registrations and inspections have been under consideration by previous administrations and city councils for over a decade. This action is a major step toward improving living conditions for all residents and property owners in New Albany. Unfortunately, the rental property inspection component was stripped from ordinance G-15-05.”

City attorney Shane Gibson addressed a work session on the ordinance immediately before the council meeting.

“Our police and fire departments spend hours trying to track down owners when there’s a problem," he said. "Registration is the biggest aspect.”

City Building Commissioner David Brewer spoke in support of the ordinance during the work session, saying, “We’re a 200-year-old city. We’ve got buildings that deteriorate every time it rains. I deal with them every day. I’ve some of the worst of the worst.”

During the council meeting, the majority of the more than 25 residents signed up to speak expressed support for the registration of owners, but held deep concerns with other aspects, such as fines and penalties and the inspection rules.

Speakers expressed concerns about the city’s ability to handle the number of inspections called for by the ordinance, the perception of many landlords that they are being targeted while problem tenants are not being addressed and the fact that only rental properties are included.

Russell Kruer, a broker/owner with RE/MAX Results, spoke against the ordinance, citing issues he has faced in getting the city to address some concerns at properties he owns.

“I am tired of taking care of the city’s issues when they’re not taking care of mine,” he said. “I can’t get the city to return my calls.”

Sandy Hamish with Hamish Properties said her company manages over 100 properties in New Albany.

“Owners have told me they want no part of this. They will sell. Tenants have told me they’re going to move” because they don’t want their privacy invaded by an inspection.

Kindly note the three years of complete silence since the preceding was published.

To be sure, language delineating rental property inspections now exists, but it's unclear where it is and how it works. The following passage, which details a self-certification mechanism whereby rental property owners can make just like the barons of the air at Boeing, comes from Zoning Ordinance, the 238-page masterpiece produced by Gahan campaign donor 11th Street Development (and linked at the city's official site).

I was under the impression all this legalese was approved by city council last year, but not everything in it jibes when compared to the Code of Ordinances on-line, where the registration process is detailed but not the inspections.

d. Self-Certification Program.

i. Qualification. A rental housing property shall be placed in the Self-Certification Program if all the following circumstances exist:

1. After the last inspection conducted pursuant to this Section, the Code Enforcement Officer determines no violations exist on the property or violations identified were abated within thirty (30) days.

2. The Owner and Local Contact Representative comply with all applicable provisions of this Section; and

3. The Owner is not delinquent on any payment to the City of property or other taxes, fees, penalties, or any other monies related to the property.

ii. Removal from the Program. A rental housing property may be removed from the Self-Certification Program if any of the following circumstances occurs:

1. The rental housing property is in violation of this Section or any other provision of law, even if the violation is abated within thirty (30) days: or

2. Any of the circumstances set forth in Section 6.17(D)(4)(d) cease to exist.

iii. Self-Certification. Owners of rental housing properties that are in the Self-Certification Program shall certify, under penalty of perjury, that each rental housing unit on the property is in compliance with all building, housing, and sanitary codes annually by no later than January 31, and upon each change in tenancy. Self-certification shall consist of the following:

1. The Owner, or his or her designee, shall inspect all Common Elements and each unit that becomes vacant since the prior certification for compliance with the requirements of SelfCertification as provided by the City;

2. The Owner shall repair immediately any conditions necessary to achieve compliance with the Self-Certification requirements;

3. The Owner shall complete the Self-Certification documentation and submit the form to the City and to the occupants of the corresponding rental housing unit.

4. In the event any rental housing unit cannot be self-certified due to conditions of the property or an inability to repair conditions, the Owner must immediately notify the City.

iv. Random Inspections. The City may inspect rental housing properties and vacant Rental Housing Units in the Self-Certification Program on a random basis, but not more frequently than once per year.

Are Gahan's Kool-Aid drinkers on board with self-certification mechanism?

They're eager to overlook their idol's proposed gutting of public housing, while still pretending to honor the Democratic Party's commitment-in-the-breach to the community's most vulnerable.

They're eager to give a pass to the sheer inanity of David Duggins insisting his NAHA commercial property purchases on State Street are aimed at providing desperately needed extra parking for Riverview Tower, which he's just as busy depopulating.

How much gentrification and luxury enhancement can one veneer-topped mayor pursue before SOMEONE in his own party raises a timid hand and asks what he's doing to give a boost to the folks living paycheck to paycheck?

Because: if you don't pull back the curtain and see what's behind the propaganda, you're just allowing yourself to be duped, aren't you?

If I devote two minutes to providing solid information about the house at 921 Culbertson, are they billable minutes? Can I at least get a Dewey button, or maybe one extra newspaper article per month?

(Mr. Carter asked that his home address be redacted)

The News and TomMayBune's Chris Morris focuses on one decayed house in one neighborhood, and he is very disturbed by its condition.

Fair enough. You can get the gist and follow the link to his thoughts, below. Before you do so, recall that right across the street, there once was an historic tavern building which was sacrificed for Jeff Gahan's campaign finance enhancement -- and I recall the newspaper having little to say about it at the time.

ON THE AVENUES: A year later, the backroom politics of pure spite at Haughey’s Tavern still reek.

Let’s try not to forget the central point, one consistently obscured by Team Gahan’s relentless, PAC-financed and self-serving propaganda machine: Haughey’s Tavern might have been saved and rehabilitated into the sort of street corner anchor that these two new houses are utterly incapable of being, now or ever.

After all, Haughey’s did it for more than 125 years, with various occupants surviving floods, tornadoes, ice storms and changing times ... until Gahan's suburban-over-urban logic came along.

Make no mistake: Bird-dogging like Morris's in the current instance is appreciated. It never hurts to shine a light, and greater transparency is preferable in all cases. The aggrieved neighbor is absolutely right in seeking to persuade the newspaper to hold the flashlight -- something management isn't always seem interested in doing.

Of course, the newspaper typically ignores neighborhood matters like this house until handed a prurient reason to send a stenographer -- maybe a fire, or a drug bust -- and there apparently isn't a coherent editorial policy governing such matters (perhaps Bullet Bill Hanson is afraid of insulting a slumlord who advertises), but you already knew this. Just imagine if they devoted a similar focus more often.

But here's the annoying thing.

It took me, a rank amateur, all of two minutes to find the information in the next three photos. The house at 921 Culbertson is owned by Crest LLC, which recently purchased it from New Albany's redevelopment commission (more on governmental slumlordism another time), and which is registered to a fellow named Andrew S. Carter, who lives out in the county near Georgetown.

Sounds like a hell of a story. Too bad Morris didn't write it. If the reporter can't understand why anyone would even want to rehabilitate the house at 921 Culbertson, wouldn't the logical place for any intrepid newspaper reporter to start be actually calling the guy who owns it and asking him?

While the veteran newspaperman is at it, perhaps it would be instructive to delve into the relationship between the city's redevelopment and building commissions as it pertains to all those properties owned by the city itself, sitting there, vacant.

Is Carter a donor to the mayoral slush/re-election fund?

How does one opt out, anyway?

Read the story if you dare.

MORRIS: Time has run out on this old house

I'm a guy who loves tradition which includes old buildings. I love history and only wish walls could actually talk. I would love to hear what the Town Clock Church walls would have to say.

Things change, and buildings like the rest of us age ... some better than others. I am all for old buildings being rehabbed and reused. They add so much character to cities and neighborhoods.

But there comes a time when a bulldozer may be a better solution than a paint brush.

The best example of this is the house at 921 Culbertson Avenue in New Albany ...

Care about kids? Then do something about rental properties in this city.

Whack-a-mole?

An arcade game in which players use a mallet to hit toy moles, which appear at random, back into their holes ... used with reference to a situation in which attempts to solve a problem are piecemeal or superficial, resulting only in temporary or minor improvement.

I googled "slumlord" and "safety," and came up with the article quoted below, among many hundreds of others. Before you read it, take stock of the reality in New Albany.

We're actually not playing "whack-a-mole" here.

While it's true that Section 8 housing is registered and regulated with periodic inspections, hundreds of other rental properties are not even subject to the most simplistic registration, much less inspection.

Year in and year out, political "leadership" in this town looks the other way. Always has. We all know it, and tend to prefer living in denial or blaming renters rather than act.

Consequently, here's my tip-off for the week to come. In this town, hundreds of children live in unregistered, uninspected and unregulated rental properties. They live there every day and night, and every week and month during the year.

Now we have a wonderful civic pool, slated to be open two months out of the year. Building it has cost the city $9 million, not counting yearly upkeep, and in order to finance it, we borrowed against future tax revenues in the expectation that property values in the pool's TIF district will rise, and so will property taxes, and the difference will pay the bonds.

In this TIF area, hundreds of children live in unregistered, uninspected and unregulated rental properties. They live there every day and night, and every week and month in the year, and the existence of a pool is doing nothing to make their quality of life cleaner, healthier or safer.

Praise water sports and parks to your heart's content. They're important. But don't suggest to me that their existence testifies to heartfelt concern for children, when children are subject to degradation that this town's movers and shakers cannot bring themselves to address with government intervention where such action might be the only way to secure genuine improvement.

And don't even dare use the words "fundamentally better" to describe a place where an issue like this is perennially ignored owing to political cowardice. A pool is not fundamental. Living conditions are.

If you cannot tell the difference, you have no business being a lifeguard, much less a mayor.

Whack-A-Mole City Enforcement Keeps Slumlords in Business, by Megan Burks (Voice of San Diego)

... Repeated requests for repairs through Shah and his managers have netted few substantive improvements, tenants said. In a brief phone call, Shah said he acts quickly when tenants ask for repairs, but failed to follow through with an offer to provide KPBS and Voice of San Diego with proof.

And stacks of formal complaints against Shah show the city’s essentially playing a game of whack-a-mole. The city’s code enforcement team knocks out thousands of isolated complaints a year, but does little to hold repeat offenders accountable.

Public Art Scene Self-Love In The Ruins.