There has been an ongoing "discussion" of sorts regarding Air BnB on Nextdoor of late. Leaving aside the ad hominem attacks that are the hallmark of any discussions among neighbors, I believe that there is a genuine controversy within this discussion that could use some fleshing out.
The fact of the matter, as with so many other matters, is that any policy regarding Air BnB will require trade-offs. Always remember: no matter how it is couched or how good it sounds, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
On the one hand, the Town of Speedway could take a complete "hands off" approach*. The upsides to that include a community affirmation of property rights, i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your own property. Also included as an upside is the opportunity for residents of Speedway to turn their own homes into profit centers by renting same out to visitors; it would also provide new customers for the retail businesses on Main Street, most notably the restaurants. These are all good things.
Of course, with the good comes the bad. It's a package deal. While people would be free to use their property as they see fit, that "as they see fit" could (and likely would) entail some pretty annoying stuff. Today that "as they see fit" might be renting to Air B n B travellers; tomorrow that "as they see fit" might be a brothel or CAFO. I would sincerely prefer to keep either of those uses out of my neighborhood. Also, what is the impact on real estate values? It is certainly possible that owning Speedway houses as Air B n B properties would be very profitable, encouraging others to buy such houses in the community. I'm all for my own home increasing in value, but if we're talking about a quick run-up followed by a precipitous crash, thanks but no thanks. Another potential problem would be with the tenants of these homes. Everybody likes visitors until the stereotypical obnoxious tourist shows up, partying all night, parking on people's yards, littering, etc. (If you're thinking of coming to Speedway to trash the place, and there is no 500-mile race going on this weekend, please go elsewhere.)
There are two sides to the "no regulation" coin. There are also two sides to the "full regulation" approach.
Hypothetically, Speedway could still allow Air B n B properties yet regulate them to the gills. This would include such things as posting a bond for each and every time that you rent your home, to cover the possible cost to the town of responding to nuisance or other calls associated with these guests. The town could require that a home be subject to inspection each time a new "renter" signs a new "lease." For the owners of long-term rentals, this would impose a hassle at least once per year. For an Air B n B owner, this would be a hassle as often as a few times per week. If the Town forced the property owner to pay for these inspections, the hassle would also be a financial obligation. There are numerous other ways that the Town could regulate these properties, but they all have their down side.
For starters, as to the bond, enforcing the collection of it would be nearly impossible and the Town would spend more attempting to enforce such collection than it would likely ever recover. Further, there are moral dilemma problems with this: if you've already paid for breaking something that is unbroken, perhaps you are more willing to break that thing. If that thing is our community, I don't want visitors to act as though they've already paid for breaking it. As far as the inspections, this could drum some of the smaller landlords out of business right along with Air B n B houses. It could scare off potential real estate investors that want to develop areas, such as the area north of Crawfordsville Rd. near I-465. Why would you invest in Speedway if the town has shown that it will essentially destroy your investment via regulation?
Anyway, I believe that the discussion is a healthy one for the Town of Speedway. I ask that my neighbors consider the larger issues when they decide where they stand on this issue, and attempt to consider the possible side effects of any purported action. Just because it annoys you does not mean that it is bad for Speedway; just because it lines your own pocket, consider that it may be problematic for your neighbor.
Once again, I find myself returning to the latin phrase: sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.
*I am speaking hypothetically here, of course, because I for one believe that such an approach would violate the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, the takings clause of the 5th Amendment, and the dead letter "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment . . . but that Constitutional law discussion is for another day. Further, these extremes are taken outside of the context of other laws, such as nuisance laws. Today is about policy, not law.
Showing posts with label apartments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apartments. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Saturday, July 8, 2017
Bloomington - Most Expensive City? (Part 2)
Speaking of incentives in the system, in-state tuition was traditionally based on the notion that in-state students' families had been underwriting the public colleges for a long time and, thus, the children of these citizens of the state should be given preferential treatment in said public colleges.
As state support for public colleges has waned, so too has the preferential treatment. However, as any economist will tell you, prices are sticky. It's hard to suddenly jack up tuition on in-state students and close the gap against out-of-state students. So, out-of-state tuition is raised in concert with in-state tuition, and generally cross-subsidizes in-state tuition. In other words, out-of-state students become profitable.
In a country where certain portions (NY, NJ, the east coast in general) are wealthier than others (IN, KY, MI, OH, TN, AL, etc.), yet these relatively "poor" places have excellent educational institutions, it is understandable that a lot of people in the "wealthier" portions of the country want to send their children to these colleges. If you're someone living an upper-middle-class lifestyle in the New York metropolitan area, doesn't it make sense to send your child to a B1G (Big 10) university and save a boatload of money on housing? Compare rent in Bloomington to that in New York City. It's not even close.
Therefore, the rent in cities like Bloomington can be at rates that would be laughable in Fort Wayne or most of Indianapolis. If the alternative is renting a $2500/month shoe box in New York City, a $1400/month swanky loft in Bloomington, IN, seems like a really good deal.
This is my theory of why Bloomington is the most expensive city in the state.
Happy Saturday.
As state support for public colleges has waned, so too has the preferential treatment. However, as any economist will tell you, prices are sticky. It's hard to suddenly jack up tuition on in-state students and close the gap against out-of-state students. So, out-of-state tuition is raised in concert with in-state tuition, and generally cross-subsidizes in-state tuition. In other words, out-of-state students become profitable.
In a country where certain portions (NY, NJ, the east coast in general) are wealthier than others (IN, KY, MI, OH, TN, AL, etc.), yet these relatively "poor" places have excellent educational institutions, it is understandable that a lot of people in the "wealthier" portions of the country want to send their children to these colleges. If you're someone living an upper-middle-class lifestyle in the New York metropolitan area, doesn't it make sense to send your child to a B1G (Big 10) university and save a boatload of money on housing? Compare rent in Bloomington to that in New York City. It's not even close.
Therefore, the rent in cities like Bloomington can be at rates that would be laughable in Fort Wayne or most of Indianapolis. If the alternative is renting a $2500/month shoe box in New York City, a $1400/month swanky loft in Bloomington, IN, seems like a really good deal.
This is my theory of why Bloomington is the most expensive city in the state.
Happy Saturday.
Bloomington - Most expensive city? (Part 1)
I stumbled across this in the Star today.
For those who aren't going to click through, the article is about how Bloomington is the most expensive city in the state. While I suppose this isn't terribly surprising, it got me thinking about Bloomington now vs. Bloomington in the 1990s, when I was a student there.
In the '90s, my tuition at IU was rougly $1,500/semester. My mother worked for IU Health, and that got us a 50% tuition reduction. I suspect that my cost of living at the time was sub-$1,000, so an entire year of school could be financed on approximately $13,000, give or take. While this is more than a kid could make over the summer, it minimized the financial strain on my parents (who thankfully "put me on scholarship" for four years of undergrad studies).
If memory serves, when I moved back to Ft. Wayne after college, I found things to be more expensive in Ft. Wayne. I kind of figured that as the city got larger, the prices did too. This made sense, when I thought about the jump in cost of living from Ft. Wayne to Indianapolis (and there was one when I moved in 2003, but that may have been due in part to a bit of a neighborhood upgrade as well). I always knew Chicago was more expensive than Indy, and NY more expensive than either. Of course, that it made sense to me didn't mean that I liked it, but that was how I understood the world to be.
Now, of course, developments like Bloomington being the most expensive city invariably have me asking why that is. Shooting from the hip, I have a theory:
It used to be (back in the mythical, halcyon days) that college was hard to get into and relatively easy to afford. If people had student loans, they were generally minimal (sub $10,000) and they would generally pay them off within 5 years or so of graduation. This arrangement necessarily involved many people in Indiana paying taxes for a college they could not attend. One can see both the virtue and the vice in this arrangement.
Now, it seems as though the worm has turned, and college (somewhere, not necessarily at the flagship state university) is now relatively easy to get into and difficult to afford. People routinely graduate from college with debilitating debt the size of a mortgage. To compound the issue, there are so many people now going to college that it no longer makes a job candidate stand out, and there is less of a financial premium, to be a college graduate. These are of course aggregate, macro observations.
My belief is that two major policies have contributed to this situation:
First, the state has by and large withdrawn support for public institutions of higher learning. This is likely a combination of a few things:
For those who aren't going to click through, the article is about how Bloomington is the most expensive city in the state. While I suppose this isn't terribly surprising, it got me thinking about Bloomington now vs. Bloomington in the 1990s, when I was a student there.
In the '90s, my tuition at IU was rougly $1,500/semester. My mother worked for IU Health, and that got us a 50% tuition reduction. I suspect that my cost of living at the time was sub-$1,000, so an entire year of school could be financed on approximately $13,000, give or take. While this is more than a kid could make over the summer, it minimized the financial strain on my parents (who thankfully "put me on scholarship" for four years of undergrad studies).
If memory serves, when I moved back to Ft. Wayne after college, I found things to be more expensive in Ft. Wayne. I kind of figured that as the city got larger, the prices did too. This made sense, when I thought about the jump in cost of living from Ft. Wayne to Indianapolis (and there was one when I moved in 2003, but that may have been due in part to a bit of a neighborhood upgrade as well). I always knew Chicago was more expensive than Indy, and NY more expensive than either. Of course, that it made sense to me didn't mean that I liked it, but that was how I understood the world to be.
Now, of course, developments like Bloomington being the most expensive city invariably have me asking why that is. Shooting from the hip, I have a theory:
It used to be (back in the mythical, halcyon days) that college was hard to get into and relatively easy to afford. If people had student loans, they were generally minimal (sub $10,000) and they would generally pay them off within 5 years or so of graduation. This arrangement necessarily involved many people in Indiana paying taxes for a college they could not attend. One can see both the virtue and the vice in this arrangement.
Now, it seems as though the worm has turned, and college (somewhere, not necessarily at the flagship state university) is now relatively easy to get into and difficult to afford. People routinely graduate from college with debilitating debt the size of a mortgage. To compound the issue, there are so many people now going to college that it no longer makes a job candidate stand out, and there is less of a financial premium, to be a college graduate. These are of course aggregate, macro observations.
My belief is that two major policies have contributed to this situation:
First, the state has by and large withdrawn support for public institutions of higher learning. This is likely a combination of a few things:
- It likely reflects an increasingly libertarian bent in our society that believes that each individual should pay his/her own way and not depend on the public to underwrite their desires. This goes hand in hand with a belief that one values something more if he personally pays for it. . . the whole idea that nobody washes a rental car or mows the grass at a public park.
- It also likely reflects a conservative view that institutions of higher learning are liberal bastions of proto-socialist thinking.
I make no real comment on the veracity of either of these views, but I do believe that a combination of the two has resulted in less-generous funding of post-secondary educational institutions.
As the state has withdrawn support for public colleges, tuition has gone up as students have been expected to shoulder more of the burden. This is to be expected, in line with the libertarian bent noted above. To fill in this void has stepped the second major policy:
Public/private funding of student loans.
With most loans, if the borrower defaults, the lender winds up eating some of the cost (ask Donald Trump's creditors). This idea is built into the process of acceptance/rejection of loan applications and underwriting of interest rates. The greater the risk that the borrower will default, the higher the interest to pay for that risk in the long run.
When you get a student loan, though, you're generally a terrible credit risk. After all, you're only 18, have no education, no assets, and probably few if any skills.
So, the government steps in and more or less insures your loan. The public pays for this insurance.
Now, we have a situation where the lender is not bearing the risk but gets to reap the profits. Add to this that bankruptcy laws were changed in the mid 00s rendering student loan debt non-discharge-able, and you have a situation designed to put an albatross around the neck of the borrower.
In such a situation, if you were the lender, why wouldn't you extend as much credit as possible? You're going to get paid one way or another, either by the borrower (who can never discharge the debt, no matter how unlikely it is that it will ever get paid) or by the government (if the borrower dies before paying, or defaults). Your profits are a percentage of your loan portfolio.
Add into this situation that, as mentioned above, if you're an 18-year-old kid, you stand very little chance at prosperity in your 40s if you don't go to college.
So, the student has little choice but to take out debt, yet is too young to fully reckon with the consequences of racking up such a debt.
The lending institutions have very little incentive to minimize borrowers' debt obligations or to underwrite their portfolios.
The colleges have very little incentive to control costs, other than avoiding negative publicity.
Nice system we've created here.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Parking Problems for a Few
I have heard from various people lately about the "parking problem" on Main Street. Suffice it to say, I disagree with whatever activism is currently demanding the Town address parking prior to proceeding with further development. I have taken note of much of the discussion, and this is an issue that is not going away anytime soon.
Rather than allow the most vocal opponents of this development, including the Speedway Town Press, the only voice in the room, I have decided to share my thoughts on these objections and protestations, generally, and add my $0.02 to the discussion. My views on the redevelopment are generally known as well, and more will follow.
In no particular order, some thoughts:
1. If you live near Main Street and park on the street, I'm sorry to break it to you but the streets do not belong to you. They belong to the public. They are public property. They were paved with public dollars. Your property belongs to you. If you don't have sufficient parking on your property, then that is your problem. The streets belong to you in the same way they belong to every other citizen. No more. No less. The logical conclusion of this premise is that you do not have an a priori right to dictate what another property owner does with his/her property. Period.
2. Owners of businesses are responsible for their own parking, not that of others. I note that some on the Town Council have made statements to the effect that Speedway doesn't want to be the next Broad Ripple or Fountain Square. Out of context, I am not sure what was meant. However, some have taken that to mean that elected officials are looking to slow down, stop, impede, or otherwise interfere with private development to ensure that a minority of the citizenry feels like there is enough parking. (Never mind the difficulty of defining what enough parking is and whose opinion on that should prevail; or focusing on whether there is actually enough parking as opposed to whether people feel like there's enough). If that is the case, it represents a deficit of leadership in this Town. Those who would impede development for the sake of parking have little, if any, respect for property rights or vision for the future. Someone please explain to me why it is that the Wilshaw owners are expected to provide parking for Dawson's (to name but one example) customers and not vice versa. Why? Why is the Town of Speedway expected to pay for parking for people? If you insist on driving somewhere, parking is every bit the expense that you have naturally incurred as gasoline is. Don't expect me to pay for your gasoline, and don't expect me to pay for your parking. Likewise, I don't expect to pay for parking for business' patrons any more than I expect to pay for restrooms for business' patrons.
3. If the elderly or disabled can't go to a certain restaurant on Main St. because they can't park out front, that's unfortunate. I'm sure they can find somewhere to go in their car. That's the thing about cars . . . they can be driven for miles at a time. It's unfortunate they had to drive a few more minutes. It's unfortunate that Main St. did not get that business. However, until that represents a negative macro-effect, it is not the Town's problem. If businesses can't stay open because people have nowhere to park and we are dealing with a blighted area, then it's a problem for the Town to address. Until then, it is an inconvenience for some; not a public problem.
4. Priorities have a funny way of revealing themselves. Economists call this one's "stated preference" vs. one's "revealed preference." I might claim that I prefer salad for lunch, but when I continually get cheeseburgers and wings for lunch, my true preference is revealed. The same thing exists as to our Town. The way I see it, the town could put money into parking, or it could put money into a variety of other things. To name a few, it could put that money into schools, hire a few more police officers, put a sidewalk along Crawfordsville Road from the roundabout to Lynhurst, or it could put that money into a splash pad at Leonard or (preferably) Meadowood Park. To lead is to choose. If our leaders choose to put public money into parking (or require private money to be spent on it . . . there's not a whole lot of difference), then they have chosen the priorities of the old, disabled, and let's admit it, lazy, over the priorities of young families and children. This is a choice. Any member of our town council who chooses this should own that choice and be prepared to defend it.
5. Consider what an abundance of parking represents about the values of a particular place and how that makes you feel about being there. I'm thinking of the Speedway Super Center or whatever that God-awful place that houses Kroger is called. Tons of parking! Come on down! Of course, you wind up walking as far as you would if you park a block away on Main St., not to mention the horrific traffic in the "thru-ways" in that huge lot. Now conjure some examples of places where parking is rare: Times Square, Monument Circle, Wrigleyville, Broad Ripple Ave., the French Quarter. Now, let's think of places where parking is cheap and abundant: any mall, an airport, a warehouse, a factory, outside an amusement park or most sporting venues. Personally, I'd rather that Speedway err, if at all, towards the first group of places than the second. This is my home. I want it to feel like a destination. I would like it to feel welcoming to people rather than like a place largely designed for parking automobiles. Not a place that you quickly get through in order to get to wherever else you're going.
6. There is an abundance of parking in and near the track, both to the west and to the south. There is a huge lot just east of Main St. and the gas station. All it takes is a decent footpath or valet service (something that the free market is perfectly capable of providing) and VOILA! Your parking problems are solved for the time being. Perhaps someday the area develops so much that this temporary fix no longer suffices. GOOD! That means that we have convinced the world that Speedway, IN, is the place where they too should invest their money, their time, their efforts, their ingenuity, their blood, sweat and tears, and their lives.
7. To those who say that Main St. will lose business due to a lack of parking, that sounds like the old Yogi Berra quip: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." If this becomes a problem, as I noted in point #2 above, to the degree that parking becomes a genuine problem for business, I believe that the free market can address this. As I indicated, it is not as though parking nearby is difficult to find. Guess how the Columbia Club, Prime 47, the Conrad, Ruth's Chris, St. Elmo, etc., handle this? Valet service. If parking becomes a problem, $5 to have someone park it doesn't seem too bad, particularly if you're somewhere that makes you happy to be there (see point #4 above).
I could go on, as I have more thoughts to share on this notion. I recognize that my opinions will likely not be popular with the Speedway Town Press or the current group that is "working" on "solving" this "problem." For those of you who welcome development, please speak up and let our Town Council know that the loudest voices (those opposing development) are not the only voices.
Rather than allow the most vocal opponents of this development, including the Speedway Town Press, the only voice in the room, I have decided to share my thoughts on these objections and protestations, generally, and add my $0.02 to the discussion. My views on the redevelopment are generally known as well, and more will follow.
In no particular order, some thoughts:
1. If you live near Main Street and park on the street, I'm sorry to break it to you but the streets do not belong to you. They belong to the public. They are public property. They were paved with public dollars. Your property belongs to you. If you don't have sufficient parking on your property, then that is your problem. The streets belong to you in the same way they belong to every other citizen. No more. No less. The logical conclusion of this premise is that you do not have an a priori right to dictate what another property owner does with his/her property. Period.
2. Owners of businesses are responsible for their own parking, not that of others. I note that some on the Town Council have made statements to the effect that Speedway doesn't want to be the next Broad Ripple or Fountain Square. Out of context, I am not sure what was meant. However, some have taken that to mean that elected officials are looking to slow down, stop, impede, or otherwise interfere with private development to ensure that a minority of the citizenry feels like there is enough parking. (Never mind the difficulty of defining what enough parking is and whose opinion on that should prevail; or focusing on whether there is actually enough parking as opposed to whether people feel like there's enough). If that is the case, it represents a deficit of leadership in this Town. Those who would impede development for the sake of parking have little, if any, respect for property rights or vision for the future. Someone please explain to me why it is that the Wilshaw owners are expected to provide parking for Dawson's (to name but one example) customers and not vice versa. Why? Why is the Town of Speedway expected to pay for parking for people? If you insist on driving somewhere, parking is every bit the expense that you have naturally incurred as gasoline is. Don't expect me to pay for your gasoline, and don't expect me to pay for your parking. Likewise, I don't expect to pay for parking for business' patrons any more than I expect to pay for restrooms for business' patrons.
3. If the elderly or disabled can't go to a certain restaurant on Main St. because they can't park out front, that's unfortunate. I'm sure they can find somewhere to go in their car. That's the thing about cars . . . they can be driven for miles at a time. It's unfortunate they had to drive a few more minutes. It's unfortunate that Main St. did not get that business. However, until that represents a negative macro-effect, it is not the Town's problem. If businesses can't stay open because people have nowhere to park and we are dealing with a blighted area, then it's a problem for the Town to address. Until then, it is an inconvenience for some; not a public problem.
4. Priorities have a funny way of revealing themselves. Economists call this one's "stated preference" vs. one's "revealed preference." I might claim that I prefer salad for lunch, but when I continually get cheeseburgers and wings for lunch, my true preference is revealed. The same thing exists as to our Town. The way I see it, the town could put money into parking, or it could put money into a variety of other things. To name a few, it could put that money into schools, hire a few more police officers, put a sidewalk along Crawfordsville Road from the roundabout to Lynhurst, or it could put that money into a splash pad at Leonard or (preferably) Meadowood Park. To lead is to choose. If our leaders choose to put public money into parking (or require private money to be spent on it . . . there's not a whole lot of difference), then they have chosen the priorities of the old, disabled, and let's admit it, lazy, over the priorities of young families and children. This is a choice. Any member of our town council who chooses this should own that choice and be prepared to defend it.
5. Consider what an abundance of parking represents about the values of a particular place and how that makes you feel about being there. I'm thinking of the Speedway Super Center or whatever that God-awful place that houses Kroger is called. Tons of parking! Come on down! Of course, you wind up walking as far as you would if you park a block away on Main St., not to mention the horrific traffic in the "thru-ways" in that huge lot. Now conjure some examples of places where parking is rare: Times Square, Monument Circle, Wrigleyville, Broad Ripple Ave., the French Quarter. Now, let's think of places where parking is cheap and abundant: any mall, an airport, a warehouse, a factory, outside an amusement park or most sporting venues. Personally, I'd rather that Speedway err, if at all, towards the first group of places than the second. This is my home. I want it to feel like a destination. I would like it to feel welcoming to people rather than like a place largely designed for parking automobiles. Not a place that you quickly get through in order to get to wherever else you're going.
6. There is an abundance of parking in and near the track, both to the west and to the south. There is a huge lot just east of Main St. and the gas station. All it takes is a decent footpath or valet service (something that the free market is perfectly capable of providing) and VOILA! Your parking problems are solved for the time being. Perhaps someday the area develops so much that this temporary fix no longer suffices. GOOD! That means that we have convinced the world that Speedway, IN, is the place where they too should invest their money, their time, their efforts, their ingenuity, their blood, sweat and tears, and their lives.
7. To those who say that Main St. will lose business due to a lack of parking, that sounds like the old Yogi Berra quip: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." If this becomes a problem, as I noted in point #2 above, to the degree that parking becomes a genuine problem for business, I believe that the free market can address this. As I indicated, it is not as though parking nearby is difficult to find. Guess how the Columbia Club, Prime 47, the Conrad, Ruth's Chris, St. Elmo, etc., handle this? Valet service. If parking becomes a problem, $5 to have someone park it doesn't seem too bad, particularly if you're somewhere that makes you happy to be there (see point #4 above).
I could go on, as I have more thoughts to share on this notion. I recognize that my opinions will likely not be popular with the Speedway Town Press or the current group that is "working" on "solving" this "problem." For those of you who welcome development, please speak up and let our Town Council know that the loudest voices (those opposing development) are not the only voices.
Monday, February 6, 2017
f/k/a Copper Tree Apartments
So, it appears that Copper Tree Apartments are now known as The Legends at Speedway, or something like that. For the uninitiated, these apartments are at about 2400 N. Lynhurst in Indianapolis. I can only hope that this change in name indicates either a change in ownership or a change in the approach of the present ownership.
While I cannot say from personal experience, it is my understanding that Copper Tree was pretty subpar in its sanitation practices, to say the very least. We met a family in Meadowood Park that lived there, and they spoke of a litany of problems: sewage backing up into their unit; mold exposure, making their kids sick; generally awful.
Now, I've lived in many (too many) rentals over the years. Some were good. Some were not. I also understand the role of the tenant in keeping an apartment sanitary, but that responsibility rests equally with the landlord. After all, the owner of the apartment has a larger financial stake in the value of the real estate than the tenants as well as a longer term ownership commitment.
Nevertheless, as a Speedway resident, homeowner, and citizen, it is manifestly in my interest to have The Legends be a better, rather than worse, rental option than Copper Tree has historically been.
I understand that the complex has owners. I understand that owners want (and are entitled to seek) maximum return on their investment. That said, we in the community have an interest in protecting the value of our own property and to the degree that any other property negatively impacts our own, we have an interest in ensuring that the owners of that property bear the burden for their refusal to keep their property up to standards.
When Copper Tree failed to provide basic necessities, such as mold-free living or sewage-free carpet, they saved money. The owners of the apartment community pocketed the money they would have otherwise had to spend to fix the problem. By saving money, they have imposed their costs on our community. I see this as not unlike a situation where Copper Tree (or anyone else) wants to save money by not paying for trash collection. Sure, they save money. Where does the garbage go? If the owners of the property dispose of the trash properly, I don't care where it goes. If the trash goes on my yard, I care a lot.
Letting a few weeds go un-pulled in the parking lot is one thing. When we're talking about broad deleterious effects on the community, which impose real costs on that community, I believe that the community then has the right to involve itself in the management of the apartment to the limited degree necessary to protect its interests.
I believe that the best approach to getting The Legends improved and elevated in the market is to apply pressure on them from a regulatory standpoint. Speedway has health ordinances. We have them for a reason. We elect a town council to enact these ordinances. If we don't believe in them we have the right to rescind them.
Interestingly, this Copper Tree (n/k/a The Legends) is split between two councilor's districts. Districts 2 (Jeff Matthews) & 4 (Eileen Fisher) each have about 1/2 of it. I wonder if either of them has made a stink about this. If anyone knows, please inform.
As a somewhat-related aside, I wonder who made the determination that Copper Tree should be split between two councilor's districts and why that decision was made. The cynic in me has ideas, but I try to keep the cynic in me at bay.
The fact remains that we have a town health code.
We need to enforce it.
If the owners of this complex are unable or unwilling to comply with our sanitary requirements (which, to be impolitely frank, I could think of worse things than to be called "too clean"), they are free to alienate their asset to someone who is willing to comply with our laws.
Last but by no means least, I want to be clear that this is in no way an indictment of the residents of Copper Tree. If I were to survey them, I'm willing to bet the overwhelming sentiment would be that they yearn for sanitary apartments more than I yearn for their apartments to be sanitary, though that is just my assumption.
My $0.02.
While I cannot say from personal experience, it is my understanding that Copper Tree was pretty subpar in its sanitation practices, to say the very least. We met a family in Meadowood Park that lived there, and they spoke of a litany of problems: sewage backing up into their unit; mold exposure, making their kids sick; generally awful.
Now, I've lived in many (too many) rentals over the years. Some were good. Some were not. I also understand the role of the tenant in keeping an apartment sanitary, but that responsibility rests equally with the landlord. After all, the owner of the apartment has a larger financial stake in the value of the real estate than the tenants as well as a longer term ownership commitment.
Nevertheless, as a Speedway resident, homeowner, and citizen, it is manifestly in my interest to have The Legends be a better, rather than worse, rental option than Copper Tree has historically been.
I understand that the complex has owners. I understand that owners want (and are entitled to seek) maximum return on their investment. That said, we in the community have an interest in protecting the value of our own property and to the degree that any other property negatively impacts our own, we have an interest in ensuring that the owners of that property bear the burden for their refusal to keep their property up to standards.
When Copper Tree failed to provide basic necessities, such as mold-free living or sewage-free carpet, they saved money. The owners of the apartment community pocketed the money they would have otherwise had to spend to fix the problem. By saving money, they have imposed their costs on our community. I see this as not unlike a situation where Copper Tree (or anyone else) wants to save money by not paying for trash collection. Sure, they save money. Where does the garbage go? If the owners of the property dispose of the trash properly, I don't care where it goes. If the trash goes on my yard, I care a lot.
Letting a few weeds go un-pulled in the parking lot is one thing. When we're talking about broad deleterious effects on the community, which impose real costs on that community, I believe that the community then has the right to involve itself in the management of the apartment to the limited degree necessary to protect its interests.
I believe that the best approach to getting The Legends improved and elevated in the market is to apply pressure on them from a regulatory standpoint. Speedway has health ordinances. We have them for a reason. We elect a town council to enact these ordinances. If we don't believe in them we have the right to rescind them.
Interestingly, this Copper Tree (n/k/a The Legends) is split between two councilor's districts. Districts 2 (Jeff Matthews) & 4 (Eileen Fisher) each have about 1/2 of it. I wonder if either of them has made a stink about this. If anyone knows, please inform.
As a somewhat-related aside, I wonder who made the determination that Copper Tree should be split between two councilor's districts and why that decision was made. The cynic in me has ideas, but I try to keep the cynic in me at bay.
The fact remains that we have a town health code.
We need to enforce it.
If the owners of this complex are unable or unwilling to comply with our sanitary requirements (which, to be impolitely frank, I could think of worse things than to be called "too clean"), they are free to alienate their asset to someone who is willing to comply with our laws.
Last but by no means least, I want to be clear that this is in no way an indictment of the residents of Copper Tree. If I were to survey them, I'm willing to bet the overwhelming sentiment would be that they yearn for sanitary apartments more than I yearn for their apartments to be sanitary, though that is just my assumption.
My $0.02.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)