Laserfiche WebLink
Session <br />July 16, <br /> <br />1816 <br />2001 <br /> <br />DAYS THE PERIOD IN WHICH PREMISES SHOULD BE BROUGHT INTO <br />COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE UNDER A CONDITIONAL PERMIT, ADDING <br />A NEW SUBSECTION ON OCCUPANCY PERMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL <br />RENTAL PROPERTY AND PROVIDING A DEFINITION THEREFOR; <br />CONTAINING A SAVING CLAUSE AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams reported that this bill was to be held over, but their were citizens that <br />wished to discuss it this eveniing. <br /> <br />Suzanne Schoomer, #7 Princeton, stated that she is greatly disturbed to the proposed <br />change to the property maintenance ordinance. She does not own rental property in U. <br />City, but does manage property in St. Louis. She believes the internal inspections to be <br />a serious invasion of privacy. She would not like to have her home inspected every two <br />years, she would not like to subject a tenant to this invasion. This would cause time <br />and appointment problems among the owner, tenant and inspector. It would be an <br />open ended financial burden on the landlord to have to keep up with maintenance <br />issues, which would normally be done at the end of an occupancy. Senior citizens are <br />terrified at the prospect of strangers being in their home and an invasion of their space. <br />She worries about the discrimination between rental property versus owner occupied. <br />She understands that there is a problem with 5% of the rental properties, but she would <br />like the Council to find other ways of addressing the problem. <br /> <br />Henry Berry, 7228 Dartmouth, stated that he is against the rental inspections for a <br />couple of reasons. The rental program is discriminatory and unfair to rental property <br />owners. Owner occupied property should also be under the same inspection program. <br />The City needs to focus there resources on the one or two problem properties. City <br />services are strapped for resources as it is and this new program will expand the needs <br />of an already overburdened staff. <br /> <br />Charles Zdazinsky, 8025 Delmar, stated that he owns a couple of rental units across <br />from Flynn Park. He addressed the Council on this matter in April and his feelings on <br />this issue are on the record. He would like the Council to consider tabling this bill to <br />restudy the issues surrounding the rental inspection program. It is very difficult to <br />inspect an occupied apartment. He believes that might be a problem with inspectors <br />objectively inspecting properties when faced with the lifestyles of tenants. Our current <br />inspection program, which could probably use some improvements, is thought of very <br />highly in the county and he does not understand why we would want to change it into <br />an unfriendly system. <br /> <br />Michael Schneider, 7443 Cromwell, 63105 stated that he does not believe that the <br />proposed ordinance will not increase property values and may even increase <br />vacancies. He believes there are more efficient methods to combat the infrequent <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />