The Nuisance and Point of Sale Ordinance- Lorain

July 5, 2013 at 11:25 am 25 comments

Urban LEA

I am posting the letter and information I have sent to the members of Lorain city council – You know the “landlords and realtors will be out in force on Monday – the letter is self explanatory and all documentation is available-

Attention of:
City of Lorain,
Mayor Ritenauer,
Members of Lorain City Council June 30th, 2013

Dear Mayor Ritenauer and members of Lorain City Council,

RE: Point of Sale and Nuisance Property Ordinances

I am writing to you today to give you my perspective of the Point of Sale ordinance and the Nuisance Ordinance you will be discussing , from one who has tried to make the city of Lorain a welcoming place, especially in the 44052 zip code.
lnwc
In 2005/6 the then Lorain Neighborhood Watch Council , a collaboration of area block watches worked diligently with then Law Director Mark Provenza , Chief Rivera and many other law enforcement and safety service agencies to draft a “nuisance ordinance”.

The ordinance was welcomed by the police and fire committee at that time and was sent back to Safety / Service Director Craig Miller and Mayor Foltin to be “tweaked”. It died a death on the desks on the 7th floor. Why? Because a plethora of landlords at the time, some of whom will appear before you again on July the 8th, objected strongly and loudly.

Around the same time period a “point of sale “ ordinance was also introduced , this time the council chambers was packed with realtors , stating “you won’t be able to sell any property in Lorain etc.”
This too died a death.

Now, 7 years later, we are once again having a nuisance and point of sale ordinance brought before Lorain City Council. I have over the previous week researched who “owns” Lorain, what LLC’s, how many properties and sellable Lorain.
Dumped
In the 7 years since the ordinances died their deaths, my property value has gone down, I couldn’t sell my house worth $84,000 in 2002 for what I paid for it in 1973 – $22,000. I would get more out of stripping it and selling it for its architectural details. Houses on my block are selling for $10,000 dollars, less than a used car.

Due to the fact there has never been a point of sale inspection done, the property next door to me which changed hands 6 times in the time I have lived here, slowly was bastardized , rented, abused and neglected until the city had to demolish it in 2012.

Don’t take my word for it the Lorain County Auditor then Mark Stewart ) in 2009 gave a “Triennial Update” of property values :
(PDF Files upon request)

2009
District 42- which is the Lorain City School District- at that time from 2006 lost 9.95 % the City of Lorain lost -2% to the top end of 16% (the older neighborhoods)

2012
Lorain lost a further 12.8 % in those three years and a projected $505,203.00 loss in 2013.
(All documentation available)

Therefore, if my math is correct, since the last time council chambers was filled with “the businesses of property” we have a combined loss of 22.3%

I would surmise Lorain hasn’t been successful in the “real estate” market without a point of sale. In fact, if my block and buildings on Broadway are anything to go by,

3620-clifton-house
Photo Lisa Miller 3620 Clifton. Sale date 1/13/2011

NOT having a point of sale inspection has in fact caused a blight of epidemic proportions in our older neighborhoods.

You will have any number of ‘property owners and the “business of landlords” reaching out to you as they did before. I would ask you to remember- they are “businesses, and should be considered as such. As one of the largest property owners, residing in Amherst, stated exactly one year ago in the Morning Journal

We simply assure housing providers that they are running a business not like any other business,” Sutton said.:“The housing should be kept up to some condition of the neighborhood.”

Part of the reason our property values are going down is the “health and condition of the neighborhood”

Who is determining the “health and condition of our neighborhoods? I took it upon myself last week to research this situation; this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Schneider George 011813

Sampling of just SOME of the owners/ landlords who have had issues with their properties making the print media in the last year for criminal /adverse societal activities.

PROPERTY OWNERS AND NUMBER OF PROPERTIES OWNED

GEORGE SCHNEIDER = (Under his own name) = 164
Also
G AND S PROPERTIES = (INCLUDING Jay Metals 1965 E 28th) 3

Also a
GNS PROPERTIES = 1
GEORGE (misspelled ) SCHENIDER= 6
Also affiliated with
reds
REDS ALL AMERICAN RECYCLING = ( David Carter) = 52
DAVID CARTER= 12

Also affiliated with

FGSK PROPERTIES (inc Gustav AND Anna Krause) = 19
GUSTAV KRAUSE = 12
ANNA KRAUSE = 6
TOTAL PROPERTIES FOR THIS GROUPING = 275

ED Note- You can find the linkage in this post http://thatwoman.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/who-holds-the-key-george-schneider-david-carter-gustav-krause/

landlord leasing

DEAN HUNKER ( AMHERST) – LANDLORD LEASING -IS ALSO-
BELLA VILLAS LLC 3
BETTER HOMES INVESTMENTS LLC 25
BRADEN CAPITAL LLC 14
CROSSROADS LLC 13
GRAND HARBOUR HOLDINGS LLC 8
JCA FUITION REALTY 3
SELECT RESIDENTIAL LLC 20
WILLOW CREEK INVESTMENTS LLC 22
MIDCITY RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENTS 29
JCA PROPERTY 2
TOTAL PROPERTIES UNDER DEAN HUNKER LLC’S = 139

Kent Sutton

Kent Sutton

KENT SUTTON (AMHERST) 19
KTS LLC 77
SUTTON RENTALS 46
TOTAL PROPERTIES FOR KENT SUTTON AND CO =142

DEBORAH AND JOSEPH AKIN – NORTH RIDGEVILLE
TOTAL PROPERTIES FOR AKIN = 47

JASON E DAVIS AND GINA )- DAVIS PROPETY RENTALS – GRAFTON
TOTAL PROPERTIES FOR DAVIs = 31

LEWIS STRNAD – deceased –without a will- properties not being well managed
TOTAL PROPERTIES FOR STRNAD = 47
*****All data gathered from the Lorain County Auditors site June 29th 2013 and print media archives

Research as to the number of property owners listed under LLC and Ltd. companies:
llc-2010

** All data gathered from Lorain County Auditors site, Ohio Secretary of State June 29th 2013 “Clarification” the only LLC shown below are those that are not under known names – such as Spitzer, Veard, religious communities, funeral homes etc.

The number of LLC’s tracked totaled “197” OWNING PROPERTY IN LORAIN.

THEY OWN APPROXIMATELY 2,289 PROPERTIES / PARCELS BETWEEN THEM

” 193” TRACKED BACK TO “OWNER PLACE OF RESIDENCE”

“146” OUTSIDE LORAIN LLC. ETC OR “75.64 %” percent of ownership is outside Lorain

47 LORAIN OWNED LLC ETC. or 24.35 %

******Breakdown is as follows (OUTSIDE OWNERSHIP) PROPERTIES CAN RANGE FROM 1 PARCEL TO over 100 AT THE TOP END)

AMHERST = 30 REG. LLC = 15.5 %
ELYRIA = 12 REG. LLC = 6.2 5%
WESTLAKE = 11 REG. LLC = 5.7%
AVON = 10 REG. LLC = 5.2 %
AVON LAKE =7 REG.LLC= 3.6 %
NORTH RIDGEVILLE = 7 REG.LLC=3.6 %
SHEFFILED LAKE/VILLAGE= 6 REG.LLC= 3.1%
CLEVELAND = 5 REG.LLC= 2.5%
VERMILION = 5 REG.LLC =2.5%
COLUMBUS = 3 REG.LLC = 1.55%
CALIFORNIA= 3 REG.LLC= 1.55% NOTE AT LEAST ONE CALIFORNIA OWNER HAS 58 PROPERTIES
PENNSYLVANIA= 3 REG.LLC = 1.55%
HURON- 2 REG.LLC = 1.03 %
WELLINGTON= 2 REG.LLC = 1.03%
LAKEWOOD= 2 REG LLC. = 1.03 %
FLORIDA = 2 REG.LLC= 1.03%
BEECHWOOD= 2 REG LLC= 1.03%
NORTH OLMSTEAD = 2 REG.LLC = 1.03%
MEDINA= 2 REG.LLC = 1.03%
GRAFTON= 2 REG.LLC = 1.035
AURORA= 2 REG.LLC= 1.03%
BAYVILLAGE= 2 REG.LLC= 1.03%
CANADA = 2 REG. LLC =1.03% (NOTE: ONE IS FOR A TRAILER PARK)

BRECKSVILLE, COLORADO, TEXAS, AKRON, ARIZONA , TOLEDO, KENT, UNION TOWN, CHAGRIN FALLS, MARSHALVILLE, ROCKY RIVER, MILAN, NORTH ROYALTON, AKEMAN, CHAGRIN FALLS, NEWARK OH, LICHFIELD , STONGSVILLE, SEVEN HILLS, BRUNSWICK , ST. MARY’S, OBERLIN 1 REG LLC

As you can see, there is a reason the council chambers will be packed- property is big business and a business that is “polluting”, in my opinion, the “condition of the neighborhood.” I am not painting all rentals and landlords with the same “dirty brush” but there are enough of them who do the “minimum” affecting this community in a very negative way.

My home, being 87 years old, would probably not meet a point of sale inspection, but I welcome the ordinance. I too, am on a fixed income and AARP tells me I am now a senior citizen.

Photo Source: Bobel – Morning Journal

Photo Source: Bobel – Morning Journal


I have seen the nuisance calls to the police week after week with having Lorain’s oldest “crime watch community”, when they would be better employed elsewhere, hopefully in a proactive role, this is not a luxury they now have. We have experienced the dangers of abandoned property fires, drug deals and assaults. We have gone past the tipping point in Lorain – we need “accountability in Lorain or at the next Triennial Evaluation only part of Lorain will even have a percentage.

Thank you for your time and patience, I will be at the meeting but I could not get all this information in in my “three minute” time limit. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I remain:

Yours sincerely

Loraine Ritchey resident)

ED NOTE since I wrote this letter on Monday last- one more LLC was found, due to a RSO living in one of the properties so please add one more to the LLC and one more to out of town and also to CALIFORNIA!!!! am I dreaming or is this a nightmare????

Entry filed under: a Cow -elle opinion, Charleston Village, city of lorain, Corporate responsibility, hell is other people, Lorain Multi Property Owners, notorious opponents of exactitude. Tags: , , , , , , .

July 3rd -The fire consumes – Chris Ritchey St. George (Schneider) and the B(l)arney LELA

25 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Dr Tammy  |  July 5, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    As a commercial property owner and LLC, we are 100% behind you on this one!! We grew up in Lorain, left for over thirty years, then decided this is where we wanted to ~retire. Our roots are here! We have lived all over the U.S. and this POS is not uncommon in other cities, just the cost of doing business.

    I do have a few questions since I haven’t read the ordinance yet. How does this Point of Sale impact the normal house/building inspection (~$400.00) that one would get before purchasing a home or commercial building? I know some buyers don’t get the housing inspection and, legally (at least for Lorain), they don’t have to.

    Will this ordinance stop a purchase from going through until it is completed and the work is rechecked? Will there be enough inspectors to cover the entire city? This could turn into a real problem when you need to close in the 30-60 day time frame, what is the plan to help keep a purchase on schedule? One would think the seller would get the POS permit before the house went on the market as part of a checklist of things to do and the Realtor would have it in hand when showing the place.

  • 2. Loraine Ritchey  |  July 5, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    You can read the proposed ordinances on the City of Lorain’s website – for July 8th

    http://www.cityoflorain.org/city_council/agendas

  • 3. Loraine Ritchey  |  July 5, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    Also I believe if I am reading correctly this POS is for residential not commercial – although I think it should be

  • 4. Ladalang  |  July 5, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    I think this would have been a good idea thirty years ago, but now the housing stock is in such disrepair, this ordinance will kill any hope of selling homes in Lorain. It’s hard enough with poorly performing schools, high crime, high taxes and roads in deplorable condition that anyone will be able to sell or buy here. I think it’s terrible that our homeowners have had to take a hit on their property values as it is, this will stop real estate transfers in their tracks. This is a band aid that’s way too late in coming. We’ve passed the tipping point for this to do anything but shut the housing market down. We should do what Stockton CA does (highest foreclosure city in the US). Before foreclosure can be filed, the bank has to hire a property manager to cut the grass and maintain the property. They have to post this person’s name and number on a big sign on the door. They don’t do it they don’t get to foreclose. This would put local people to work and have someone watching over these homes.

  • 5. Loraine Ritchey  |  July 5, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    I don’t see that the way before has helped sell houses ( at a decent price) we have to start chipping away at the housing stock that is left before they too have to be taken down –

    they can always repeal the ordinance if it looks like a death knell BUT when researching these LLC I found one group State Boys Investments had 11 properties which they “sold” to HN Realty another Mega landlord with more property ( Westlake) none of those homes had even a cursory inspection and this is the pattern they keep on selling them on to one another until they are used up… and that was in the last few months..
    These guys chop and change property quicker than a whore changes her knickers…… ( my visual for the day ;) that is because these big landlords are pimping in my opinion the property in Lorain…

    No one in one of the wealthier areas of Lorain would dream of buying a house without a “home inspection” ( privately) so why should we in the “down market neighbors” be subjected to the decay of decline and demolition…..according to the 2010 census we are only 57% owner occupired and that was 3 years ago I reckon we are pretty evenly split now 50 50 we need some sort of accountability

    otherwise they only people wanting to buy your property or mine will be the mega landlords or we will be “sticking” it to some poor devil who is looking to buy an older home with a property that has issues. And they will be taken in so why should someone because they are in the lesser income area not have the same advantages as those that can afford an inspection??? – just like the landlord next to me who filled the cracks in the unsafe basement with bath tub caulk and painted over it the house was diseased but looked OK. Luckily the tree fell on it before the bank could dump it too….

    .. No we have to start somewhere to take back as painful as it might be,,,,,,, we have to stop the rot…. because the other way has not worked…….. .

  • 6. Rich  |  July 6, 2013 at 3:04 am

    Very awakening!

  • 7. Brian  |  July 6, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    I can understand your frustration, however, I believe that your hope that a point of sale inspections for regulating rental properties is like requiring cars to be inspected before they are sold in the hopes that it would reduce drunk driving.

    You mention it yourself that even your own home may not pass a property inspection and I would tend to believe that “most of” any of the older homes in our city would have the same difficulty placed upon them.

    I agree that there should be some sort of point of sale regulation passed. One that deals with REQUIRING that illegal gravel driveways get installed and that the exteriors of homes meet a state established standard. PERIOD. This would require INVESTMENT in visible improvements that are already required by law. Not a great big ol ordinance, just one that puts some bite into the laws that are already there..

    As Dr. Tammy mentioned there is no way that most homes would be able to close in a timely manner if interior and exterior are required to be repaired before transfer. However, properties could transfer if monies for exterior items to be completed are held in escrow and paid out when they are completed. This process is already in place and required by most banks and lending institutions.

    I believe that a better use of resources and efforts would be to establish a rental licensing and registration ordinance for addressing the concerns that you have with landlords. That would assist the city in collecting income taxes from the rental businesses and create revenue to fund the program. If you think that Lorain already has this in place, lay the ordinances of cities like Lakewood next to the one Lorain has and compare.

  • 8. Brian  |  July 6, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    oops, I misstyped. The above comment should read that all illegal gravel driveways get replaced with hard surface driveways. Sorry for the confusion.

  • 9. Loraine Ritchey  |  July 6, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    confusion that is par for living here :) and I agree – I will tell you though we do have MOT inspection in England Ministry of Transport requires vehicles to be tested for roadworthiness and yeah it helps keep the drunks off the road cause they have to save money for the inspections :) seriously this has been going on over 50 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOT_test it is annoyin g but a good thing because you know the car your are buying is at least roadworthy and the car you are driving is safe for at least another three years

    I agree with and I believe it does mention holding funds in escrow…… something has to be done, does the ordinance need some tweaking possibly but we have to start having ordinances with guts and accountability because unfortunately we can’t rely upon “integrity ” anymore…….

  • 10. Dr Tammy  |  July 6, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    I took a look at the ordinance, it looks like it does have some loop holes. Things like auctions, quitclaim deeds, as is and land contract are not covered. The amount ($100.00) is very small for what the buyer will get. Of course Brian is right, with a 65% rental housing stock, Lorain will still need another ordinance to cover the rental dilemma. Similar to what Section 8 for Federal funds requires. There may be some nay sayers, but just as with other ordinances people said wouldn’t work, it will just take time and an occasional tweak to make it work. One would think it would favor business, it allows them to charge a little more for an “up to snuff ” place!

  • 11. Loraine Ritchey  |  July 7, 2013 at 10:59 am

    Yes I agree with Brian and the rentals the are the biggest business Lorain has and I have said all along anyone over three rental properties is not mom and pop operations and should therefore be treated like the businesses they are…

  • […] The Nuisance and Point of Sale Ordinance- Lorain […]

  • 13. Brian  |  July 7, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    Loraine,
    If your belief is that the rental industry is the problem, I do not understand how the point of sale ordinance is going to accomplish anything that you want. It is noted that there are already exclusions, as there should for certain situations.

    A couple going through the difficult times of a divorce most likely cannot afford to update their homes when their incomes are split, therefore the quit claim deed exclusion makes sense. Quit claim/quick claim transfers may be the highest occurrence of property title transfers. These types of transfers are NOT considered business transfers but done to alleviate a hardship on residents and are only fair. These transfers typically DO NOT degrade the condition of a neighborhood because someone is left still occupying the home therefore maintaining stability.

    Auctions triggered by foreclosures are most likely the second largest cause of property transfers.These types of transfers are BUSINESS related and do have a direct relationship on the condition of the neighborhoods. Millions upon millions of our tax payer dollars are being used to help offset the damage that occurs when this happens and I am somewhat concerned that this type of transfer has an exclusion. While requiring a POS inspection may be overly burdensome to enforce, the time of auction itself may be the perfect time to inform the prospective new owners that they must maintain the properties or face CRIMINAL penalties and fines that WILL BE placed the properties that they may purchase. This would help deal with the issues that the community is placed upon when people buy $200 houses.

    That brings us to valid sales. The smallest group of transfers at this time and the only ones that the POS ordinance will have any say over. One way of looking at the way this is being addressed is that it is being done from the bottom up instead of the top down so who is really going to be impacted and is this more of a punishment to those that are trying to sell their homes when the largest offenders of property abuse are given a free pass.

    So what does the POS ordinance do if the worst offenders are given a free pass and residents are penalized for trying to sell their homes? I believe it will do the exact opposite of what you think it will accomplish and dump more properties into the hands of investors who have blanket exclusions to the laws that are being created.

    I believe that this is the wrong law to pass at this time because it does nothing to address the problems that you have documented. While it may make you feel good for a short period of time it will only defer the problems that you have with the rental industry and fuel another series of posts about how it isn’t working.

  • 14. Loraine Ritchey  |  July 7, 2013 at 3:23 pm

    You are right Brian I don’t think it goes far enough with the businesses of rentals and the loop holes . I believe the “landlords and multi property owners NEED to have more restrictions for their business…. and I will certainly entertain bringing that up to the Administration and City Council – although I think their eyes are starting to glaze over :) talk about shooting the messenger it is more like ignoring the messenger …. I feel like I am living in a vacuum most of the time . Problems I HAVE with the rental industry????? hmm see they are spilling out and rotting Lorain’s core….

    I do also believe that most of us trying to sell our homes in the older neighborhoods now are going to be eaten up by the rental property market anyway .

    look at George for instance 4.5 years ago he had 39 properties and now over 169…. let us look at the wealthier developments in Lorain
    OK so some of them are newish but if they are allowed to change hands the way the older neighbor hoods have over the decades they too will end up just like us……..

    There was a development over on the West side when I first came to Lorain , the housing was touted as the be all and end all ( in the 70’s) and now well looks like what it is a bunch of run down housing mainly rentals and do you remember over by the Pipe yard the “development of duplexes they were advertised at the time as buy one rent out the other side pay for your mortgage and a “very nice development “ back slapping all around well the whole street pretty much now is owned by a guy in Westlake all 100 properties……… you see POS has to start somewhere so maybe we can save a bit of Lorain…..

    and if anything ….MORE needs to be done re the rentals … we need tougher ordinances on these rentals we are a glut of them. Lakewood as you mentioned and their property ordinance codes don’t have troubles we have, we are like a “cesspit of comradeship”
    everybody entwined with every one else …

    I am not worried about selling my house – I refuse to let it become a rental..so you know what my plans are …. to die…… to tell my heirs to strip it of all architectural details that are worth anything and leave the rest and the property to the city or county……because I am so fed up with the “crap”……..

  • 15. Brian  |  July 8, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    Loraine,
    In the development to the west of the Pipeyard, I helped build two homes there a few years ago for Lewis Strnad before he died. It was originally supposed to be a duplex to match the others in the neighborhood, but because of the distance requirements for being away from a waterway, I split the house in two and built two whole houses spaced apart. I believe I was the last person to build brand new single family homes for rent.

    I read the newspaper articles today. I do not comment on them as I feel uncomfortable discussing issues anymore with fake names that are moderated.

    There are laws that are on the books NOW that address most of the issues that you have brought up. If you would discuss the whys and hows of why these current laws are not effective I believe that you would have a better understanding of what the city should do next.

    I myself am against the point of sale ordinance not because I want things to remain the same, but because it is a punishment (an unintentional monetary fine placed against HOMEOWNERS) that wish to sell their property.

    I don’t believe that the exclusions for banks and businesses will be considered for removal, so what will be the REAL RESULT of the proposed ordinance? This is the discussion that should be going on beforehand and I bet that this is the least thing that will be discussed tonight at council.

    My sister lives in Shaker Heights that has a POS. The reason why the POS works in Shaker Heights is because many of their residents are wealthy bigots and are that way to keep out the “poor scum”. I am not saying that all the residents of Shaker Heights are bigots, just that there is enough of the like minded folks there that want to keep the “poor lower class” out of their schools and neighborhoods that they can make it extremely difficult for poorer folks to move in.

    To have a true discussion on the issue of POS, some data should be discussed. Since this is a point of sale discussion, the first bit of information that should be discussed is information concerning property transfers. How many transfers are “valid homeowner sales” compared to auctions and quit claim deeds. and a map showing were these sales have occurred over the past two years.

    The second thing that should be discussed AFTER the data is given is what the city projects will happen if the ordinance is passed as it is presented and why the current laws are ineffective. If the cities inspectors can already do exterior inspections from the sidewalk and can’t get compliance, does this mean how many valid sales a year will it take to get the cities housing up to code?

    I am going to guess that the number of valid sales per year in Lorain number in the HUNDREDS while their are tens of thousands of housing units. Remove the commercial multifamily units and divide that by the number of valid sales and how many decades, or possibly centuries is it going to take to make the new law work?

    Do the math and it doesn’t add up.

    ,

  • 16. Loraine Ritchey  |  July 8, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    Oh Brian I agree I am not disagreeing with your points I understand them but it is to me about the future of those house in Lorain that are the “newer” not ending up like us. and I have written and written and written about the ordinances in Lorain in the “Cowboys of Lorain series” However I would like your thoughts ( even off the blog) as to what would work, what does need to be tweaked and how we can get accountability re the landlords :)

    You would have to ask Foltin, Desvari, Krasienko and Klinar why things weren’t enforced… ;)

    Maybe by bringing this information up and in the open people will realize what a mess we are in… Will it save Lorain no you are right it will take years BUT we have to start somewhere . well we will see what council says ……..

    and as for your friend . Mr. Strnad. well he had a lot to answer for he like many others left a pile of crap in my neighborhood- yes he dies he didn’t leave a will and now we are trying to deal with the dumps and the issues he left- point the Mayor King house on Washington.. can’t tell you how many times I have spoken to the “attorney” just to get the garbage cleared away .no don’t talk to me about Lewis Strnad he was one of the problems not the solution

    http://thatwoman.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/these-old-houses-are-talking-are-we-listening/

  • 17. Brian  |  July 8, 2013 at 2:56 pm

    What is the point of discussing new laws when the ones that are already on the books are not working is the real issue here.. THEN AND ONLY THEN creating new laws that better the community as a whole are worthwhile to discuss.

    I actually think discussing and resolving the issues with our school system would be of more benefit of our cities housing because I believe that they work hand in hand.

  • 18. Loraine Ritchey  |  July 8, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    that is right the codes aren’t working and they too need to be enforced where applicable and toughened up …

    you asked about Landlords having decent properties and being an asset to those communities Ok to the 30 or so LLC property owners that live in Amherst – do you truly think they could get away with the housing they “minimally maintained” here in Lorain in Amherst or Avon Lake. why because maybe they live there…… take a look at the LLC breakdown 75 % live outside Lorain and I would love to know how many of them are you “great landlords” and wouldn’t want their own property values to lose 22 percent

    I just had an email which I have forwarded about a 40% loss on a 450,000 dollar home since 2007

    ( now the banks which were at the fault of the 2008) crisis and these old properties again caused major issues and the resulting economic downtown which can be blamed upon our “poor economic” situation and where Brian did the house of cards first come tumbling down oh Yes CLEVELAND Ta da!!

    Why did that happen because realtors pushed houses and financing at people who really couldn’t afford to maintain , pay taxes on these homes all they wanted was the SALE and the commission….. and don’t anyone say that didn’t happen because I went to a “Realtors Association meeting at the college as a guest speaker and sat through their meeting on how to put clients in a 250,000 dollar home for less that $150.00 a month through Fanny Mae ( remember them and their contribution to the bust)

    They were all but salivating at that meeting – I was disgusted because poor as I am at math even I knew this was set for a fall…..however I couldn’t predict how catastrophic for the economy as a whole it would be

    so then you have a bunch of homes foreclosed by banks who don’t want them , dumping them , and the “business landlords” hovering at auctions, buying them up for pennies on the dollar…. and trading them like baseball cards… I have no sympathy for “the business of blight” or regard…… they are pimping Lorain… now I am going to cut my grass before I get cited :)

  • 19. Dr Tammy  |  July 8, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    One thing we may not be considering in this exchange is Big Business (or any business) is looking for communities who have workers AND safe, clean and caring neighborhoods. This includes homes, streets, enforced ordinances, parks and schools. This ordinance says volumes to businesses and makes them more likely to locate in Lorain. This ordinance is for the future, not for the past. Once this passes and we clean up the rental mess, then businesses will be interested. This is a solid step for the city to say “we care” and we want jobs to come to Lorain!

  • 20. Loraine Ritchey  |  July 8, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    agreed this ordinance is for the future of Lorain

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Categories

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 144 other followers

July 2013
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 144 other followers