Cheers and boos to Toledo City Council - UPDATED

I discussed the City Council votes on numerous issues on Eye on Toledo last night (listen here), and today's Blade also has a recap. So here are the cheers and boos:

CHEERS to Michael Ashford for voting no on the $7.8 million Southwyck buyout plan.

"We are on the hook for $7.8 million, and he (Larry Dillin) wants the city to help him with a $17 million plan. We can't afford that," Mr. Ashford said. "He wants a commitment for 2008 and 2009 [capital improvements for the $4 million], which we don't even know yet."

He also questioned why the city of Toledo is the "middleman" buying private property, doing asbestos cleanup, and then selling it to a private developer.

That's a great question, Mike, and it's one I bet didn't get answered. But I - and I'm sure many others - appreciate your take on this one. NBC24 has a good explanation of the requirements the city agreed to - and a copy of the letter of agreement on the deal from Larry Dillin.

BOOS to the rest of council, especially the Republicans, who seem to think this is what constitutes economic development while they perpetuate other policies and taxation that make this city 'not business friendly.'

CHEERS again to Michael Ashford for voting against spending $35,000 to hire a company to survey 800 Toledoans about their budget priorities, especially considering the fact that both the University of Toledo and Bowling Green State University have the ability to do the same thing for considerably less.

BOOS to the 10 council members who voted in favor of the new convenience store licensing law (background here, here, here and here.) According to an email from one of my WSPD listeners, Councilman Joe McNamara called the proposed legislation 'Draconian' and was going to meet with Councilman Rob Ludeman (the sponsor of the legislation) Monday to see about making some changes. Changes were made - some good, some not - and McNamara urged passage of the law which reflected 'minor tweaking.'

Some of the 'tweaking' was not 'minor' and I'll be discussing this tonight on Eye on Toledo at 6 p.m.

CHEERS to Betty Shultz and Joe Birmingham for voting against this.

'Not business friendly' - post #4

Well, despite the pleas from realtors who truly know our market the best, Toledo City Council passed a government-mandated inspection of homes prior to a land-contract sale. (Blade article on the vote here.) And kudos to the five council members who voted no: Joe Birmingham (R-Dist. 6), Rob Ludeman (R-at large), George Sarantou (R-at large), Betty Shultz (R-at large) and Mark Sobczak (D-at large).

This means that anyone wanted to sell their home under a land-contract agreement must first apply to the Commissioner of Building Inspection for the Certificate of Property Code Compliance (CPCC) and include a copy of the inspection of the house conducted by an inspector "registered with the Commissioner of Building Inspection."

"A Certificate of Property Code Compliance Inspection shall include an inspection of the electrical, heating, and plumbing systems and building structure (e.g., roof, gutters, siding, etc.) to ensure that the residential property is in a safe, sanitary and habitable condition and meets the Property Maintenance Code (PMC) of the State of Ohio. Any Certificate of Property Code Compliance Inspection Report shall be on the form provided by the City of Toledo. Minimally, the Certificate of Property Code Compliance Inspection Report shall list individual violations and a rough estimate of the cost to cure each violation or deficiency, signed by a Registered Inspector. The Commissioner of Neighborhood Revitalization or the Commissioner of Building Inspection may, at his or her discretion, accept alternative inspection report forms. The Certificate of Property Code Compliance Inspection Report shall be completed and filed with the Commissioner of Neighborhood Revitalization or the Commissioner of Building Inspection within thirty (30) days of the date of application."

You've got 90-days (renewable once) to fix any defects found in the inspection report. Oh - and of course it's going to cost you $100 to actually become a 'registered inspector.' And, if you fail to follow this law, you can be fined $250 for the first violation, $500 for the second one and $1,000 for the third and subsequent fines - enforceable in civil court.

Non-compliance with other portions of this new law can be charged under the criminal code "of a misdemeanor third degree on the first offense, a misdemeanor of the second degree for a second subsequent offense or a misdemeanor of the first degree for a third subsequent offense."

All this, according to Keith Foster, vice president of the Greater Toledo Housing Coalition which sought the change, is to "protect the consumer."

And, the coalition will certainly work with any landlord who thinks the law is detrimental ... how magnanimous.

As many landlords and realtors have said in the past, laws already exist to protect such consumers. But the problem many housing advocates have is that they provide relief AFTER the fact, rather than preventing the consumer from making a mistake in the first place. And now we have the force of government to ensure that no one purchases a home on land contract without being aware of any problems and having them fixed. Never mind that anyone purchasing a home has the ability to hire an inspector and then negotiate a price accordingly. The force of law is now going to be not on the buyer, but on the seller to not only perform the inspection but to make any necessary repairs.

I guess the days of 'caveat emptor' are over - and instead we have the increasing lack of personal responsibility due to the government ensuring you never have the opportunity to learn from a mistake.