|To the Editor: BG resident criticizes how city dealt with landlord|
|Written by Sally Medbourn Mott|
|Saturday, 08 August 2009 08:01|
The ever-fluctuating vagaries of the city's "how many unrelated people can live in a rental house" laws continue to confound us landlords.
¬†If only Brad Waltz (fined $45,000 for renting to 4 instead of 3 unrelated tenants, S-T, July 22, page 4) had flown his 4 "unrelated" tenants out to Las Vegas for some quickie marriages, they would have then been "related" and he would've avoided the $45,000 non-related tenant fine.
¬†Even more unsettling (and quite scary) was the city's deceitful and mean-spirited approach to alerting Mr. Waltz about the situation:¬† His tenants " . . . were taken to the police station, forced to sign affidavits swearing they would not tell me I was caught. That way my $500/day fine kept on, for six weeks (resulting in a $45,000 fine)."
¬†Doesn't this smack just a little of entrapment?
¬†Entrapment isn't legal, is it?
¬†And surely the parents of these students were horrified that their children were dealt with in such a bullying manner.
¬†Maybe the salaries of the rental-police depend on how long rental-violation fees are allowed to run up before landlords are notified?
¬†Like snow-shoveling police salaries depend on how quickly citizens can be fined (before the snow has a chance to melt)?
¬†Like police salaries depend on how many speeding tickets are issued?
Sally Medbourn Mott
Front Page Stories
|Weston to use tablets, save paper
03/10/2014 | BILL RYAN, Sentinel Staff Writer
WESTON ‚ÄĒ At the March 3 meeting of the Weston Village Council there was a diff [ ... ]
|Special Olympics equipment stolen from Wood Lane|
03/10/2014 | PETER KUEBECK, Sentinel Staff Writer
The Wood County Special Olympics will still go on as authorities look into the t [ ... ]