This little nugget is also from 1964. The gist of it is a Ward Supervisor wants to draw up legislation to make owners of "deteriorated" properties into making improvements.

This was 50 years ago!!!! We should be ashamed of ourselves! 50 years and we're still talking about the same things. 50 years and still no solutions. Why have we let this go on!!!



http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-nchAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YYgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2329%2C3414681

It's probably all stuff in city code.

However, right now, the city is so focused on downtown and ignoring the neighborhoods they don't have time to address issues of the people who actually pay the taxes.

City is so focused on downtown and using the taxpayers' money down there that there's no money to spend for regular daily year round work to address the houses.  

Instead the city admin chooses to do one once a year effort and then they blare it all over the news "city workers will be going around the neighborhoods looking for violations of......"   The people see that on the news and are fooled into thinking the city is actually spending their tax dollars wisely when the city is clearly mis-spending the taxpayers money.   Some guy spoke tonight about  neighbor cutting hair and obviously the "couple week effort" to look for violations is passed so this guy is now ignored.  Maybe this particular situation is not a code issue in the same way as overgrown weeds, but it's a home business and without looking up codes I'm not sure what the codes for the city says (but you have to give that "neighbor" credit for using his house because he'd probably otherwise have to compete against a Forbes billionaire company that is exempt from taxes, i.e., city using taxpayers money to give unfair competition to the rich.

Quoted from Alva White

This little nugget is also from 1964. The gist of it is a Ward Supervisor wants to draw up legislation to make owners of "deteriorated" properties into making improvements.

This was 50 years ago!!!! We should be ashamed of ourselves! 50 years and we're still talking about the same things. 50 years and still no solutions. Why have we let this go on!!!



http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-nchAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YYgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2329%2C3414681

One of the problems with trying to go after owners of deteriorating properties is that state law regulates the process.   The municipality has to follow the process and that can take a number of months.  It is especially difficult when a "slum lord" lives out of state and owns the property through one of several "paper entities."  They can take advantage of the several month long legal process and then - at the last minute - "sell" the property from one "paper entity" to another, and then -- the whole process has to start all over again.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

One of the problems with trying to go after owners of deteriorating properties is that state law regulates the process.   The municipality has to follow the process and that can take a number of months.  It is especially difficult when a "slum lord" lives out of state and owns the property through one of several "paper entities."  They can take advantage of the several month long legal process and then - at the last minute - "sell" the property from one "paper entity" to another, and then -- the whole process has to start all over again.

What state law governs a city from charging a property within it's city with some violation?

I believe state law addresses tax foreclosures.   And I know the state has building codes that apply to buildings built after a certain date, I mean I don't think there is anything in state law that mandates that if you own a house built 300 years ago and your current circuit breakers were installed 40 years ago, the state cannot mandate that today you go and change all the breakers and add more outlets.  I think, and this may vary from city to city, but if I am having my kitchen redone (new lights, GFI outlets, etc), and naturally I have to apply for a building permit some places might require me to put in GFI outlets in the bathroom at the same time I'm redoing my kitchen, or some may require me to rewire the whole house at the same time I'm going only the kitchen, but I'm not sure whether that's local laws or state laws.


But a city can require a house to be painted, or lawn mowed, placement of trash cans, etc, but the whole process of charging a property owner for some violation of some local requirement is not going to be in any state law, I don't believe.  Now since you say the state law that dictates the process --perhaps of charging a slumlord who lives out of state with failure to mow the lawn in a at his property in Schenectady, please do include the link to the law.   I know that there are requirements for property owners/landlords for habitability issues (railings on stairs, working furnace, etc) but as unsightly as it is, I don't think any state law rules the process that city can go through over a landlord who mows is lawn only twice a summer for example.

Quoted from mikechristine1

What state law governs a city from charging a property within it's city with some violation?

I believe state law addresses tax foreclosures.   And I know the state has building codes that apply to buildings built after a certain date, I mean I don't think there is anything in state law that mandates that if you own a house built 300 years ago and your current circuit breakers were installed 40 years ago, the state cannot mandate that today you go and change all the breakers and add more outlets.  I think, and this may vary from city to city, but if I am having my kitchen redone (new lights, GFI outlets, etc), and naturally I have to apply for a building permit some places might require me to put in GFI outlets in the bathroom at the same time I'm redoing my kitchen, or some may require me to rewire the whole house at the same time I'm going only the kitchen, but I'm not sure whether that's local laws or state laws.


But a city can require a house to be painted, or lawn mowed, placement of trash cans, etc, but the whole process of charging a property owner for some violation of some local requirement is not going to be in any state law, I don't believe.  Now since you say the state law that dictates the process --perhaps of charging a slumlord who lives out of state with failure to mow the lawn in a at his property in Schenectady, please do include the link to the law.   I know that there are requirements for property owners/landlords for habitability issues (railings on stairs, working furnace, etc) but as unsightly as it is, I don't think any state law rules the process that city can go through over a landlord who mows is lawn only twice a summer for example.

UBC The Uniform Building Code

Quoted from Sombody

UBC The Uniform Building Code

I know there are state building codes, and generally the are building code that apply to new or renovated buildings.   Again, while I'm not 100% positive, I don't think state or local codes would mandate that all homeowners must immediately, upon passage of a law, immediately go and update all their circuit breakers.

Just like maybe in a rental inspection in Schenectady for example, they might require GFI outlets in kitchen and bath (because of water), but if the house has, perhaps one outlet on each wall in a living room, dining room and bedrooms, the city rental inspectors, I do not believe could mandate that the owner immediately add enough outlets so that there is one every six feet (I think that's the standard now for new buildings and perhaps if someone is maybe removing the plaster in a living room and changing to sheet rock, perhaps a condition of the building permit may require the owner to add all the extra outlets in that room only, not all the others.

But I'll guess that a rental inspection would require GFI outlets in kitchen and bath.  The process to address an owner who does not have GFI outlets in those rooms, and the city is going to require the owner to change it, THAT process by the local could be addressed in state building codes.

But I highly doubt that Schenectady's requirement for placement of trash cans, or the maximum height of grass, and the process for charging the owner for a violation of those things, I highly doubt that the state is going to have a say in how the city handles an owner who doesn't store trash cans in the rear of the house.

That's why I'm saying, anyone who says it's the state dictates the process for locals, it would be nice to have a link to the state website with the law that addresses that.   And again, I'm not referencing what process the state might have for a process on how a city handles violations of state building codes.   I'm referencing whether a state can dictate to a city how a city handles it's own codes---such as placement of trash cans--that have nothing to do with state building codes.  The only thing that I'm thinking of off hand, and it's not the code itself, it's the penalty.   In Schenectady, penalties for such things as lawn height and such, if not paid get added to property taxes and I'm of the understanding that the process of foreclosing on taxes is addressed in state law---but even then, state law would only deal with the time frame, they have no authority in the amount of interest that is charged on delinquent tax bills nor is the state involved with how much a city can charge for a penalty for unmowed lawn.

What I don't know is any violation, say, of lawn height, the code people either put a sticker on a house or send a letter.  Does the city actually have to take the owner to court which could have some effect on the process, but that applies to any court thing, if I sue someone who put in a bad driveway, I need evidence to show the work was bad.  I'm sure if the city has to take people to actual court to cite them for lawn height I would think they would need a photo with a ruler to show the height, unless it's like two feet high, but again, that wouldn't be a requirement by the state but rather common sense for a plaintiff to win their case.