BANGOR, Maine — Bangor residents and law enforcement officials got one big step closer Tuesday night to having a new tool to use against owners of properties at which public disturbances frequently occur.
In an effort born of Bangor city staff’s ongoing Main Street Corridor revitalization project, city councilors are zeroing in on enacting a new ordinance targeting those who own rented or leased properties which draw multiple complaints from neighbors and-or police officers.
“They need the tools, but so do we,” said one female Bangor resident who has a repeatedly problematic efficiency apartment complex in her west side neighborhood. “I checked with police and they’ve had 39 calls to go there with six arrests since January this year.
“We’re hostages in our own homes now.”
The proposed ordinance is aimed at holding property owners — including homeowners, live-in landlords, absentee landlords and property managers — of “disruptive properties,” including residences, rooming and boarding houses and apartment buildings, responsible for repeated disruptions.
Bangor City Solicitor Norm Heitmann has researched potential ordinance language while also studying similar ordinances recently approved in places like Biddeford and South Portland.
The proposed ordinance includes a remediation process and — if warranted — a monetary penalty ranging from $500 to $1,000.
“Our goal is to work with landlords, not against them,” said Bangor City Solicitor Norm Heitmann.
“The city would have to be patient with the legal process as even vigilant landlords have a long, involved process they have to follow to evict problem tenants.”
Several residents came to Tuesday evening’s business and economic development committee meeting at City Hall to share complaints or stories about problematic properties in their neighborhoods and encourage the councilors to continue the effort to enact a disruptive property ordinance.
Another resident on Webster Avenue told councilors and city staff members that his neighborhood has been menaced by drug dealing going on in and outside four apartments at a large rental unit. Another mentioned repeated vandalism of an abandoned home next door.
“Clearly we have failed on this issue over the years, but I don’t want people to keep getting frustrated over recurring issues,” said Bangor police Lt. Mark Hathaway, interim police chief. “This will help us. It won’t solve all our problems, but it will definitely help us better address these issues.”
Jeremy Martin, Bangor’s code enforcement officer, said at the very least, the proposed ordinance would literally help city officials and law enforcement get a foot in the door and see things from the inside.
“This process would allow us to inspect more houses,” Martin explained. “A lot of these houses and apartments we’ve never even been to.
“This, combined with aggressive code enforcement, will go a long way to addressing these ongoing problems in certain neighborhoods.”
Many of the eight who addressed the councilors urged them to toughen the ordinance further. Some of the councilors agreed.
“I would like this to have as many teeth in it as possible,” said Councilor Sue Hawes. “The stronger it is, the more effective it will be.”
A Parkview Avenue resident suggested adding wording dealing with potential retaliation toward a landlord by a problem tenant.
Heitmann was asked to look into “toughening up the language” of the ordinance, which calls for potential remediation either via fines, restitution or restorative work or actions after the second disruptive incident within a 60-day period.
Disruptive incidents include loud music, boisterous gatherings, fighting or brawling, and excessive loud noises audible beyond the property lines.
The ordinance’s current language takes a five-step approach in terms of disruptive incidents over a 360-day period. Property owners could face fines, mandatory inspections and criminal charges, depending on the nature of the disruptive violations.
The five committee members voted unanimously to recommend that the full city council send it back to committee for further language revision. The city council will be able to review the ordinance and act on it at its Oct. 22 meeting.
Since most of the residents who turned out for Tuesday’s meeting were neighbors bothered by problematic rental properties, councilors said they hope to have more dialogue and input from landlords, who they encourage to attend the Oct. 22 meeting.
I absolutely love the idea of holding landlords accountable for their properties. This city is drowning in slums that are poorly managed by their owners, some of whom are influential.
Get rid of the methodone clinics too!
AMEN!
Exactly. The City keeps building these and making this a service center for troubled people but then it’s the landlord’s fault if they don’t behave they want them to! Where are they supposed to live?
Restrictions should also be placed on services provided by Pine Tree Legal when evictions are clearly tied to unacceptable/violent behavior.
Do you really think the City can pass an ordinance restricting the rights of American citizens to legal representation?
Apparently the City thinks it can hold someone responsible for the actions of another person so stay tuned.
Not only the city administration, but the residents of this city too… Looking for someone to blame instead of holding individuals responsible for their own behaviors. Why not make these kinds of disruptive behaviors punishable with more than a civil infraction?
They definitely should have access to legal representation. However, they should be the ones that take the initiative to get it. At an eviction hearing, a Pine Tree legal lawyer stands in the lobby and yells, “If you are here getting evicted and you want to see if you’re eligible for free legal respresentation come on down.” Mind you, because the system is so pro-tenant, they have known about this for possibly months but haven’t bother to call Pine Tree Legal. And it’s not because they don’t know about most of the time.
We can whine about the difficulty of evicting bad renters, but there’s a very easy solution that doesn’t cost money or require the use of the courts: Do a better job of screening them in the first place.
Because of privacy lots, that’s easier said than done. I do have a private investigator that checks out applications but it’s not exhaustive. I have just recently had to start requiring people to show me a picture ID because I had someone apply under another person’s name. But I’ll probably be told that’s discrimanatory!
that efficiency complex is a dump and has been for 20 years and should be mulched used to be owned by Bernie labree probably still is
Properties can’t be disruptive. Tenants may have problems and be disruptive. That is police work. We are landlords, not babysitters, nor police. Slippery slope, making some people responsible for other people’s behavior.
Try proper tenant screening and providing reasonable accommodations. What kind of tenants do you expect when you treat your buildings like trash (flies and maggots)?
Ever heard the concept of MYOB?
As a former multi-family property owner, I call it like I see it. You are apparently a slumlord and deserve this additional scrutiny by the City.
They are talking about more than property maintenance, read it again. Did you live with your tenants so you could control who visited them and when they went to bed? Come on now.
All you need to do is be responsible and screen your tenants. If you can’t do that – you should be held accountable. Bangor is finally ready to do that.
I am responsible and I do screen my tenants. But they live in the house, not me. They are responsible for their own actions, not me.
So if your property housed tenants that required 39 calls to the police and 6 arrests since January, you’d carry on with your super effective screening process?
I understand that it sounds that simple but it really isn’t. As landlords, we get pressure from both sides. We are told we can’t discriminate because someone receives public assistance or has mental illness yet those are the people who usually cause the most drama and disturbance. And unfortunately the pool of renters has gone downhill terribly. Making an adult responsible for another adult’s behavior is not possible.
I’m not asking that you be responsible for someone else’s behavior, just your property. Take more time, require more references, do more homework. Simple.
I pay a private investigator to do a background check and a check for evictions and I call references. Recently I had someone who checked out good, didn’t have a lot for reference because they just did 20 years in the military which I verified but then after renting to them, I figure that everything they gave me was false and they were not that person so now I guess I have to require picture ID. Is that legal? They’re having a fit about someone having to show ID to vote so now am I discriminating against poor people. Once again, it’s easy to say Simple. when you haven’t been there. And I do take care of my properties as much as my checkbook allows!
I was a former multi-family property owner as well and I had a vigorous screening procedure. More than once it cost me what appeared to be excellent tenants because they rented another place while I was still chasing references, etc.
I got caught one time by someone who screened OK but within months after moving in started using drugs, lost their job, and I believe ended up dealing…. Guess what. It took months to evict them. The entire process is biased against the landlord.
The eviction process is way too long and I feel sorry for the many, many good landlords who have to go through that. Of course screening is not going to tell you everything about a person. I’m guessing though that those 39 calls and 6 arrests weren’t firsts for those tenants. Everyone on that street knows what’s going on at the efficiency apartments so if nothing is being done about it for YEARS it’s because the land(slum)lord doesn’t care…hey, he doesn’t live near there!
If it’s so tough, then don’t do it. Plenty of folks would love to buy your multi and make monthly $$ off of it.
How about a paragraph in the lease that states that if eviction proceedings are warranted, the tenant and landlord agree to arbitration rather than court. Additionally, the paragraph could read that failure to vacate after successful arbitration will result in trespassing charges.
If the tenant signs the lease, it adds teeth to the eviction process.
It’s about like holding Hope House responsible for the actions of those who stay there, when they ‘trespass’ through private property……..
Here’s a novel idea: HOLD THOSE WHO COMMIT THE DISTURBANCES AND TROUBLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS INSTEAD OF PUTTING BLAME AND RESPONSIBILITY ON OTHER PEOPLE!
We need to get as many landlords as possible at that meeting.
A self evaluation seems to be in order. Why not see what they can do, without making headlines and causing confusion and mystery?
“Disruptive incidents include loud music, boisterous gatherings, fighting
or brawling, and excessive loud noises audible beyond the property
lines.” Where’s Terence? Have you consulted with Terence?
Terrnce would say live with the repeated noisy concerts babies.
You just described West Market Square at 1:05am every Friday and Saturday night…..
So I see our New City Manager brought with her what she learned in Orono. When she tried to make landlords responsibile for tenants.. She also passed a law that no more then one unrelated person shall live in a house in Orono. LOL.. November can’t come fast enough.. Vote the coachroaches out. and fire the City Manager.
Lets make the schools responsibile for the kids who drop out of school. by paying the kids a living wage for 10 years. also they will get docked the 8k out of the budget per student.
That would come out of tax payers pockets.
I was thinking if the parents can insure their 26 year olds then they should be held responsible for everything their kids do until they no longer can insure them.
Getting rid of the Methodone clinics and the rooming houses catering to sex offenders is FAR more important!
The city councilors have turned into lawyers. Hopefully they take EBT cards for payments because thats what you are dealing with.
The City needs some kind of renter certification program, where renters understand their respondibility of being a renter, and sign a renters certificate on file, so if they violate the rules the police and landlords have a leg to stand on.
hahaha when will this madness end? A renter’s certification?
BAD PROPERTY OWNERS, HOW BAD ARE THEY?? LOL gotta wonder where they get these reporters, LOL
I met Officer Jordan in early 1990 in an official capacity, but it wasn’t long before I considered him a friend. Steve is the most kind hearted, caring officer I have ever had the pleasure of getting to know. He was a true asset to the City of Bangor. Best of luck in your future, Steve. May all good things come your way !!!
http://www.chartercities.org/ Here you go. Gated utopia for you, all laid out, no thinking required.
Another typical Bangor Daily News headline. It should say something about bad tenants. It is so discouraging that someone automatically assumes that landlords are exploitive, greedy individuals. Now even the City government is taking that attitude. I understand people’s frustration but their frustration is aimed in the wrong direction. I own 5 apt houses…there is a house across the street that has consistently bad tenants which makes it hard for me to rent to good tenants. For every landlord like that, there are more landlords like us who carefully check applications and references but that is not always fool proof either. How about fining the person misbehaving!???? That’s a novel idea! But this is a symptom of our society where no one has to take personal responsibility for their life or behavior. Ironically, in the 19 years I have owned my houses I have NEVER ONCE received a call from the Bangor PD telling me there was an incident. IF I hear about it, it’s usually from another tenant. Then the State makes it a 3 or 4 month process to get someone out of my apartment. So as you’re losing rent and they’re destroying the place during that 3 months, then I’m a bad landlord because the outside doesn’t look as nice as it should because I don’t have the large amount of money it takes to side it. It’s abosolutely craziness…I have a tenant right now that is dealing with mental illness…she has deteriorated exponentially since I rented to her. Because of her severe paranoia she calls the police frequently…now do I kick her out? Won’t someone tell me I can’t discriminate against her because she is mentally ill? Am I required to hire a 24-hour caretaker for her now?
They have no idea what you’re talking about and they do not care what you’re talking about. Save your breath. It’s about money and putting their friends’ rental businesses at the top of the heap by eliminating competition. Ask around and see how easy it is to get funds from our local banking friends to do the work on properties (they have an interest in). Unless you are “connected” to the bank in some way, or have the money up front (meaning you don’t need the grant) and get grant money (from us) discounts later, you can’t do any work on your buildings right now. C’est la vie.
Your next to last sentence is incorrect. If a landlord rents to more than 51% low to moderate income tentants, they are qualified to receive a Residential Rehabilitation Loan through the City of Bangor, Office of Community Development. In fact, I wish more landlords would take advantage.
I so want to think you’re wrong but I know it’s probably true! The whole thing just stymies me.
David & Lisa Norsworthy
There are other problems with landlords other than disruptive tenants. I see problems having to do with the landlords paying little attention to their properties other than collecting rents. There are many rental properties in need of paint, broken steps and porches, grounds that are unkempt, not enough garbage receptules, windows with panes missing. I could go on but it is obvious there are many landlords that are absentee or just do not care. There needs to be tougher laws against landlords so that they have to maintain their property. There needs to be more code enforcement so that landlords do not rent out more units than are legal or rent to more than three unrelated people in one apartment or fail to keep the property in repair. If I were relocating a business to Bangor and rode around the city (especially on the west side) I would think twice about relocating employees to this city. Landlords need to be educated because the ignorance on their parts causes their property to be devalued. A good landlord begets good tenants. Landlords need to do better screening as well as credit checks which the proposed tenant pays for.
Amen. Good properties get good renters. Dumpy rentals get dumpy renters. The end.