Showing posts sorted by relevance for query RUCO. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query RUCO. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Open Letter To Greensboro City Council on RUCO from Donna Newton and Greensboro Neighborhood Congress

The focus of the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress is the preservation and improvements of our neighborhoods in terms of quality of life, property values and safety. As we all know, sub-standard housing undermines surrounding property values - even one substandard property can undermine the property values of an entire neighborhood. Also, we know that sub-standard properties invite crime into our communities.


Other organizations that are partnering in support of the pro-active aspects of RUCO,such as the Greensboro Housing Coalition and the Human Relations Commission, are focused on the human rights issues of improving sub-standard rental properties, in that renters have a right to live in safe housing and that many of them won't complain about substandard housing out of fear of retaliation from their landlords.

Key information and talking points:
RUCO is a sucessful program

Since RUCO was implemented, known sub-standard housing in Greensboro has been reduced from 1679 units in 2003 to 705 in 2010.;

Since RUCO was implemented, complaints about sub-standard housing have been decreased 77%;

Since RUCO was implemented, inspections staff have been reduced by 22%.

Since RUCO was implemented, inspections staff have been more successful in getting deteriorated housing to the Minimum Housing Commission more quickly and the number to go has steadily increased from 17 in 2003 to 105 in 2010.

RUCO is reasonable

Once inspected and a certificate is issued, the RUCO is good for the life of the property unless there is a complaint on the property or violations are found during the sampling inspections and not repaired within the prescribed time frame.

The time frame in which a violation must be repaired is 45 days from the written notice of the violation and can be extended as long as in the judgment of the inspector, progress is being on the repairs.

The sampling inspection process applies only to a random 2% of rental properties.

Rental properties that have not yet been inspected that come on the rental market are required to pass inspection and be issued a RUCO before they can be rented.

Opponents of RUCO plan to propose an elimination of the pro-active portions of RUCO, and as they couch it: "target problem properties". Their proposal will in effect eliminate RUCO. We agree that problem properties should be targeted. However, the Housing Code already provides the means to address the obvious problem properties and the City staff have already done 100% exterior inspections at least once. Moreover, where the staff find indications of violations from the external inspections, they are pursuing internal inspections. However, staff will tell you that you can not know what violations may be present inside a residence solely from an external inspection. It is doubtful that you will see electrical problems from the exterior; or rotting floors, or problems with the heating or air conditioning, etc. The question is: do you want to wait until the problems are apparent in the exterior where they negatively impact your entire community? That's what the opponents of RUCO are proposing we do.

You can go to the City website CLICKHERE and email all Council members at one time at their City email. You can also link to the Council directory which provides their home addresses and phone numbers CLICKHERE

Moreover, you can write a letter to the editor at the News and Record at this link CLICKHERE

The Greensboro Housing Coalition also supports keeping RUCO in tact and they state the following reasons:

1. RUCO has achieved tremendous improvement in housing safety for problem properties, reducing substandard housing from 1679 units in 2003 to 705 in 2010.

2. Substandard housing conditions impact health; health care and disability costs for NC children hurt by unsafe housing conditions totaled $108,000,000 in 2007.

3. Proactive inspections prevent conditions from sliding below standard, beyond the focus on problem properties. Analogy: waiting for conditions to become big enough problems for people to complain (or inspectors to see from the street) is like waiting for restaurant kitchens to get so dirty that people see rats before the Health Dept sanitarian comes. Wouldn’t you rather have proactive inspections so that restaurants keep kitchens sanitary all the time and that rental properties stay at or above minimum standards?

The Neighborhood Congress and the Housing Coalition are, however, interested in improving the administration of the inspections programs and we have offered to assist City management and staff in identifying areas that need improvement and finding procedural and other solutions. However, such administrative improvements do not require that we remove the certification requirements within RUCO.

Three of the Congress participants who are willing to assist you with your questions about RUCO and/or drafting your comments include the following:

Laura Jackson ; Michael Pendergraft ; David Wharton .

Again, you can go to the City website CLICKHERE

You can also write a letter to the editor at the News and Record at this link: CLICKHERE

Thank you.

Donna


Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 27, 2011

How to play the City of Greensboro for chumps, by the Greensboro News & Record Editorial Board

Lying by omission

One lies by omission by omitting an important fact,
deliberately leaving another person with a misconception.

Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.

…Propaganda is an example of lying by omission.

Wikipedia

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

RUCO with Stacked Deck on Board from Lobbyist Group Wants State Law To Help Their Cause

In the past few days we have one post each from both Yes! Weekly and The Greensboro News and Record in regards to a state law that will probably do away with the Residential Unit Certificate of Occupancy for the City of Greensboro.

Yes! Weekly post titled "Some on Greensboro Council Lukewarm to RUCO" CLICKHERE
Greensboro News and Record Inside Scoop titled "Will City Council Back RUCO" CLICKHERE


 The RUCO board which is  stacked with members of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition which is the local non registered lobbyist group headed by Marlene Sanford. In a post from yes weekly in past here is what she had to say about RUCO in Greensboro:

"“It’s no secret that my constituency would like to see this program go away,” said Marlene Sanford, president of the TREBIC, which hosted the meeting."

Then this past week during a work session Jordan Green from Yes! Weekly does a great job of tweeting from the Greensboro City Council chambers and had this as a twitter post:

"Perkins says the RUCO board voted 6 to 5 against sending a letter to the mayor urging the city to oppose the legislation"
Perkins: "The majority said we don’t need RUCO


Now we see that the RUCO board voted against sending a letter to mayor in regards to what is going on in the state house in regards to legislation that will probably do away with RUCO in Greensboro if the state passes a bill.

Who are the members of the RUCO board? and who stacked the deck on the RUCO board with Marlene Sanfords constituencies?

Jordan Green also reported this on 7-21-2010,

"Early in the meeting, Newton caused distress among some of her fellow task force members by expressing the view that the makeup of the RUCO Advisory Board, which hears and determines appeals from decisions of the building inspector, should include more “representation from people who do not profit from rental property.”

Reynolds added that he receives questions about the board makeup “quite often,” and handed out a roster of members to delineate the various members' ties and affiliations. The roster shows that, not counting city council liaison Robbie Perkins and two staff members, six out of 11 members are either agents or owners of rental properties, including Dellinger; Sims; District 3 appointee Peter Placentino, who works for Brown Investment Properties; Bobby Akin of the Greensboro Landlords Association; Bryon Nelson of the Triad Apartment Association; and Todd Rotruck, the representative for the neighborhood congress"


The whole RUCO Board needs a complete overhaul if a majority of the members want to do away with what they are there to do for the citizens of Greensboro. This is a clear indication of what is a real problem with boards and commissions , where a lobbyist group has a stacked deck on a local board and votes the way they did on this issue of RUCO in Greensboro.






Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

From: Marlene Sanford - TREBIC (E-mail) To: Knight, Bill; "Trudy Wade"; Mary Rakestraw; Danny Thompson; Kee, James; Zack Matheny

"From: Marlene Sanford - TREBIC (E-mail) To: Knight, Bill; "Trudy Wade"; Mary Rakestraw; Danny Thompson; Kee, James; Zack Matheny

From: Marlene Sanford - TREBIC (E-mail)

To: Knight, Bill; "Trudy Wade"; Mary Rakestraw; Danny Thompson; Kee, James; Zack Matheny
Cc: "Jon Lowder"

Subject: Council Agenda Item 44 - RUCO

Date: Monday, June 06, 2011 4:34:33 PM

Importance: High

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

From: Marlene Sanford - TREBIC (E-mail) To: Knight, Bill; "Trudy Wade"; Mary Rakestraw; Danny Thompson; Kee, James; Zack Matheny: Did Sue Schwartz out Robbie Perkins and Bev Perdue?

From: Marlene Sanford - TREBIC (E-mail)

To: Knight, Bill; "Trudy Wade"; Mary Rakestraw; Danny Thompson; Kee, James; Zack Matheny
Cc: "Jon Lowder"

Subject: Council Agenda Item 44 - RUCO

Date: Monday, June 06, 2011 4:34:33 PM

Importance: High

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Response To This Morning's Greensboro News & Record Article on RUCO Guest Column by Donna Newton





First let me say that I think Amanda Lehmert is one of the most objective and usually accurate N&R reporters. However, we all make mistakes - as I think Amanda did in her front page article this morning about RUCO CLICKHERE. According to a report delivered by City staff at the RUCO Board meeting last Thursday, the cost of RUCO for this year will be $547,454 - NOT $980,000, so I'm trying to find out where Amanda got her number. I think staff gave a detailed budget to the Board that I didn't come away with in my packet. I'll be checking this out on Monday.


I will also say that RUCO has been wrought with administrative error since the beginning, primarily because of a very poor records keeping system. It's old and and it's cumbersome and it just doesn't work in some instances. However, despite all those hurdles, RUCO is accomplishing its purpose.

Second, the Inspections Dept. has reduced numbers of staff over the years since RUCO was put in place. They used to spend their time on the hoard of complaints - more than 2000 complaints in 2003 - down to 459 last year. Also, the number of properties they are now able to take to the minimum housing commission and actually get remedied has increased from 17 in 2003 to 105 this year. They used to spend their time chasing their tales trying to get the houses before the commission.

Third, much of the rental housing stock has been RUCO certified and we revised the ordinance some time ago so that a RUCO is for the life of the property unless there is a complaint. New rentals and those not yet inspected do, of course, have to be inspected. Plus, there is a sampling requirement of 2% of the rental stock as a sentinel effect program. Only 10% of those sampling inspections have violations. That's because they get plenty of notice that they are going to be inspected. The long notice is a good thing because after all, what we want to happen is that they fix their units. We are not out to have people fined. I think the "only 10%" is a good thing.

Finally, sub-standard units have decreased from 1,679 in 2003 to 705 last year.

This program is working in so many ways. We should not let it be undermined and we should fix the administrative problems.

I was appointed to the committee that is going to bring a recommendation to the RUCO board to take to Council. I will say that one thing I will push for is a change in the makeup of the RUCO board. It is currently almost all landlords with only one housing representative. Landlords need to be on that board, but so do more of us who know the rental housing stock in Greensboro, but do not profit from it.


Donna Newton
Greensboro Neighborhood Congress



Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Did Yes Weekly's Jordan Green just let Robbie off the hook for RUCO because he appears to be the lesser evil?


"Ms. Dellinger [Koury] moved to eliminate 2% sampling on multifamily property,
seconded by Mr. Sims.

The vote was tied 6-6.

(Ayes: Dellinger, Nelson, Placentino, Chaney, Sims, Perkins.

Nays: Akin, Rotruck, Cannon, Giles, Tuck, Smith.)

The vote died due to lack of a majority."

MINUTES OF THE GREENSBORO RENTAL UNIT COA
ADVISORY AND APPEALS BOARD REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2010

"Perkins has said that he got into city politics
through his involvement with an organization
that was a forerunner to the Triad Real Estate and Building Industries Coalition,
or TREBIC.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Greensboro News & Record Editorial Board on HB 554 and RUCO: Could not naming names be a bit cowardly?

"Editorial: Backdoor attempt to kill good policy

In basketball, the backdoor play is a thing of beauty -- a crisp stroke of timing, precision passing and teamwork.

In that case, it's an attempt to get what you want even after you've been given a fair hearing -- and told no.

Who's attempt?

Such is the case with a renewed effort to kill a successful and effective Greensboro ordinance that helps ensure safe and healthy rental housing.

Called RUCO, or Rental Unit Certificate of Occupancy, it was introduced in 2003 and has effectively reduced the amount of substandard housing in the city, as well as complaints about substandard housing.

One of the best aspects of RUCO is its focus on prevention. With its mix of random inspections, fines and certification, ultimately, of all rental housing in the city, it has resulted in problems being identified and fixed before harm is done.

It has addressed such dangers as lead contamination, plumbing leaks and poor electrical wiring.

It has reduced the number of all housing units with code violations from more than 1,600 in 2003 to fewer than 700 today.

It has decreased overall complaints about substandard housing in the city by 77 percent.

It has received the enthusiastic endorsement of the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress and the Greensboro Housing Coalition, which advocates for safe, affordable housing in the city.

And it has done all of this without adding one single city inspector to enforce RUCO.

Even so, some people want the ordinance dead and gone, everywhere and forever.

What "some people"?

They tried unsuccessfully to undermine it through the City Council in 2010.

Who are "they"?

Now they've taken their case to the state, where proposed legislation not only would forbid RUCO in Greensboro, but anywhere else in North Carolina.

Who tried to kill RUCO in Greensboro?

The state House bill would ban local governments from inspecting rental housing unless there is "reasonable cause to believe that unsafe, unsanitary, or otherwise hazardous or unlawful conditions may exist."

Why doesn't the bill have a sponsor?

In leaving no doubt that the target is RUCO, the bill adds: "In no event" may a city or county "adopt or enforce any local ordinance that would require any owner or manager of rental property to obtain any permit or permission from the county to lease or rent residential real property" or "enroll or participate in any governmental program as a condition of obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy."

Why doesn't the Editorial Board want to identify those
who would want to kill more people, by neutering safety laws?

In other words, it would not only uproot the RUCO process in Greensboro, but stamp out the seeds of any similar ordinance in other cities and counties.

Is the Editorial Board afraid to write or say the acronym TREBIC?

If the Editorial Board knows TREBIC's Marlene Sanford and friends
made the rounds on the bill at the state house in support of gutting RUCO,
why wouldn't they want to identify her/them by name?

This bill is disconcerting on two fronts: It attempts to reverse an ordinance in Greensboro that has worked very well by almost any measure. And it attempts to snatch the right of local governments to ensure safer housing for their own residents.

If the bill is so disconcerting,
why doesn't the Editorial Board have the courage to identify who is proposing the change?

If anything, other cities and counties should want to emulate this city's success.

Success at not calling out some the News & Record's advertizers
for what seems to clearly be an immoral stance on RUCO?

At the very least, Raleigh lawmakers should mind their own business and leave well enough alone in Greensboro."

Greensboro News & Record Editorial Board

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

A response to an email from Greensboro City Manager Denise Turner Roth on an unanswered public information request

“The information we gave you in response are the complete result of e-mails
which respond to the public record search criteria you provided.

As I noted previously,
we did not repeat portions of the search we had conducted previously
or provide duplicates of the information we already provided to you.”

Denise Turner email to George Hartzman
November 1, 2011

Second sentence contradicts the first.

This was supposed to be a search of Marlene Sanford’s emails.

Were Marlene’s TREBIC and any other lobbying emails searched or not?

Monday, November 14, 2011

Should somebody give Jordan Green a journalism award for his reporting on this?

It’s hard to cry over spilt milk.

If the state legislature decides
they’re going to put a program out of business,
then they’ve got the authority to do that."

Robbie Perkins

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Zack Matheny in 2009: Is there more that needs to be done with our substandard housing around the city or are we caught up on that?

"As it relates to RUCO, I believe Greensboro, North Carolina is above average
on what we’re doing throughout the state of North Carolina.

Not anymore.

If Zack thought RUCO helped Greensboro,
why did he vote to table the motion on June 7,
and why didn't he say anything in support of RUCO
before, during and after the state passed
and then Bev Purdue signed it out of law?

The fact that we have RUCO, the fact that we have a RUCO board,
and looking at our sister communities throughout the state of North Carolina,
we’re above average.

Not anymore.

We will still have a RUCO board.

As long as we have a RUCO board,
as long as we have an engineering and inspections person...

...Yes, the playing field may be leveled to a certain degree.

We’ll continue to analyze it.

I think we’re above average, and hopefully we’ll stay there.

Zack Matheny in 2009

Zack Matheny in 2011,

Nothing

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Fec - "some mind-warping logic" on Robbie Perkins and the White Street Landfill

"And here’s some mind-warping logic for you.

The social retards are up in arms
because Danish failed to recuse Perkins for being in cahoots
with one of the putative vendors.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Yes Weekly on RUCO and the Curfew: Really?: How far is Brian's head up Robbie's Rectum?

"...a dysfunctional Greensboro City Council

...the tenure of a council founded in malcontent and disinformation...

Thursday, August 26, 2010

RUCO WTF?

What does the following sentence mean?

"Task force members on the industry side
argued the RUCO Advisory Board had already instructed them
to eliminate proactive inspections;

Newton and McKee-Huger said they could not agree to that."

Donna Newton's compromise?

“I think if I can get back to them
they will seriously consider that on multifamily housing
in the place of sampling on multifamily housing,” [Donna] Newton said.

“My read is that they are not going to willingly give up
RUCO certification of single-family houses that are new on the rental market
and they will still want sampling of single-family housing.”

Who are they?
Does that imply that they are about to give up something else?
What's the something else?

"The RUCO Advisory Board voted earlier this month
to have the task force explore an option drafted by TREBIC President Marlene Sanford
that calls for eliminating “most proactive inspections and the RUCO certificate..."

Is Marlene Sanford a Lobbyist?

"Among those in the audience for the meeting
were Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan, who made the initial request
for the task force to review options for making the program more efficient,
and Assistant City Manager Andy Scott."

If Marlene Sanford is a Lobbyist,
how do Nancy Vaughan and Andy Scott feel about the RUCO Taskforce
meeting at the headquarters of the Lobbyist who wants to eliminate the program?

Jordan Green
Yes Weekly

Why is Marlene Sanford on the RUCO Taskforce?
.
Why hasn't the Greensboro News & Record Editorial Board chimed in yet?
It's only been a couple of months.

NEWSBUSTED at NEWSBUSTERS.ORG 2-18-2015