Officials punish a landlord instead of themselves
Recently, there was a residential fire in St. Paul, and 7 people were injured. Since the fire, city officials have jumped all over the landlord with blame and citations for code violations. There were 7 people (2 mothers and their 5 children) living in a space that, by code, should have had only 2 occupants. The accidental fire has allowed political "leaders" to issue forth self-righteous rhetoric.
City Council President Kathy Lantry said "one way to send a message to landlords is to throw one in jail." "There is a part of me that is stunned by the total lack of regard for the human condition on the part of that homeowner..."
St. Paul Fire Chief Doug Holton said his department is seeing more instances of overcrowding in rental housing than in the past. He believes there are economic, political and immigration issues at work.
"People are looking for good places to live, but affordable housing is hard to find," he said. "Unfortunately, some landlords are willing to bend and break the rules."
Unfortunately? Hard to find? It isn't hard, it's impossible. In what way is it unfortunate that the landlord allowed these 2 women to live in a crowded apartment at low cost? Are we to assume that the women were FORCED to take the small apartment? Are we to assume that they could have found a larger apartment for the same cost... an apartment that legally could hold 7 people? Are we to assume that the women were just too dumb or lazy to find better accommodations?
I doubt it. Nobody likes living in cramped quarters, especially with kids. It's a lot safer to assume that this apartment was as good as the women could afford, and that they were damned glad to have found it, and could have cared less what the law was. That's safe to assume because they were renting the space by their own choice.
Where would the women and their children have been living if the code had been enforced? BLANK OUT. That question politicians will never ask. The answer might be "on the street" or in some deserted building. Since they chose to live in that cramped apartment, it's safe to assume that they passed up even worse living conditions.
The real villain in this story is NOT the landlord, nor the renters who chose to live there. The real villains are the city and their damned codes that continually drive up the minimum cost of housing to the point that the poor end up having to resort to living in overcrowded spaces. The fact is that the Mayor and council members could care less about the poor, as long as they stay invisible. If they cared, or even pretended to care, they would modify the codes to allow builders to use less expensive methods and materials, and to build truly affordable housing. But... allowing that would depreciate the taxable value of city property, and it would also invite more poor into the area - both of which are the real issues being avoided by politicians.
Meanwhile, the landlord's whole building has been condemned... all 5 apartments. No word about where all the other residents will go. Almost certainly, to less desirable space, or they would have already moved. Also meanwhile... city departments are having a turf war about who gets to enforce more rigid codes and claim credit for "solving" a problem.
Fire Marshal Steve Zaccard said "The codes are in place to prevent this outcome. The codes weren't met in this building." From that we are to assume that if the violations hadn't occurred, the fire wouldn't have happened, or the people wouldn't have been injured... or somehow, it would have been better. There is no way to make that assumption. There are seriously overcrowded and unsafe living conditions everywhere, because it's the only way the poorest of citizens can afford to live here.
As long as we have politicians, there will never be any housing so safe that an accident will fail to raise a call for still more safety requirements... and even more expensive housing, leading inevitably to still more overcrowding and unsafe conditions. It's a vicious circle of the kind that only government can create. This tragedy was not caused by a landlord who let extra people share a space at a cost they could afford... it was caused by the wrongheaded belief that we can set minimum standards of housing high enough to avoid accidents.
Cites have, for many years, blamed all housing problems on landlords and builders. They've torn down immense numbers of cheap living spaces by labeling them blighted, and then replaced them with housing priced out of reach of the poor. That a city official should even PRETEND to care about the poor is hypocrisy at it's worst.
City Council President Kathy Lantry said "one way to send a message to landlords is to throw one in jail." "There is a part of me that is stunned by the total lack of regard for the human condition on the part of that homeowner..."
St. Paul Fire Chief Doug Holton said his department is seeing more instances of overcrowding in rental housing than in the past. He believes there are economic, political and immigration issues at work.
"People are looking for good places to live, but affordable housing is hard to find," he said. "Unfortunately, some landlords are willing to bend and break the rules."
Unfortunately? Hard to find? It isn't hard, it's impossible. In what way is it unfortunate that the landlord allowed these 2 women to live in a crowded apartment at low cost? Are we to assume that the women were FORCED to take the small apartment? Are we to assume that they could have found a larger apartment for the same cost... an apartment that legally could hold 7 people? Are we to assume that the women were just too dumb or lazy to find better accommodations?
I doubt it. Nobody likes living in cramped quarters, especially with kids. It's a lot safer to assume that this apartment was as good as the women could afford, and that they were damned glad to have found it, and could have cared less what the law was. That's safe to assume because they were renting the space by their own choice.
Where would the women and their children have been living if the code had been enforced? BLANK OUT. That question politicians will never ask. The answer might be "on the street" or in some deserted building. Since they chose to live in that cramped apartment, it's safe to assume that they passed up even worse living conditions.
The real villain in this story is NOT the landlord, nor the renters who chose to live there. The real villains are the city and their damned codes that continually drive up the minimum cost of housing to the point that the poor end up having to resort to living in overcrowded spaces. The fact is that the Mayor and council members could care less about the poor, as long as they stay invisible. If they cared, or even pretended to care, they would modify the codes to allow builders to use less expensive methods and materials, and to build truly affordable housing. But... allowing that would depreciate the taxable value of city property, and it would also invite more poor into the area - both of which are the real issues being avoided by politicians.
Meanwhile, the landlord's whole building has been condemned... all 5 apartments. No word about where all the other residents will go. Almost certainly, to less desirable space, or they would have already moved. Also meanwhile... city departments are having a turf war about who gets to enforce more rigid codes and claim credit for "solving" a problem.
Fire Marshal Steve Zaccard said "The codes are in place to prevent this outcome. The codes weren't met in this building." From that we are to assume that if the violations hadn't occurred, the fire wouldn't have happened, or the people wouldn't have been injured... or somehow, it would have been better. There is no way to make that assumption. There are seriously overcrowded and unsafe living conditions everywhere, because it's the only way the poorest of citizens can afford to live here.
As long as we have politicians, there will never be any housing so safe that an accident will fail to raise a call for still more safety requirements... and even more expensive housing, leading inevitably to still more overcrowding and unsafe conditions. It's a vicious circle of the kind that only government can create. This tragedy was not caused by a landlord who let extra people share a space at a cost they could afford... it was caused by the wrongheaded belief that we can set minimum standards of housing high enough to avoid accidents.
Cites have, for many years, blamed all housing problems on landlords and builders. They've torn down immense numbers of cheap living spaces by labeling them blighted, and then replaced them with housing priced out of reach of the poor. That a city official should even PRETEND to care about the poor is hypocrisy at it's worst.
posted by Robert Ronald Smith at 3:40 PM
Permalink
Post
to freedomSLUT
<< Home