Just realized its been a week since I have posted.
Its hard to get into this sort of thing in the summer time.
There also doesn't seem to be many "hot" topics going around. Mark Twain allegedly said "everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it."
It's July, its Kansas, its supposed to be hot.
The windows ordinance will be coming up again shortly. The planning commission will try to have its meeting again and have a public hearing. From there they will send it back to the city.
I try to not take sides on issues, but this is one where I feel I have to.
The future of the city is at stake.
I do believe in property rights, but at the same time, the rights of everyone else are also important.
If you drive around to other small towns, you will see there are some that are worse and that is true. Also though, most are better, to be honest. You don't see boarded up windows in most of them, and certainly you don't see tin-covered windows very much. Where there are other types of coverings, they are done tastefully.
Owning a business, or building, in town is an investment, and it has a responsibility that comes with it. Even owning a house in town involves responsibility.
We are all residents of the town and we have a right to have certain expectations.
It is too bad that people have to be told how to take care of their property.
One anonymous poster wrote a while back, "it may be your building, but it is our town."
I think that is very true.
That's my window rant for the day.
I know its not a perfect ordinance and there may be some things that arent exactly fair. BUT, you have to start somewhere.
Posts
33 comments:
I agree -- and if you can't afford he maintenance -- why own property??
Well, my only worry is that this doesn't JUST affect the downtown, or buildings on mains streets, it also affects every home or structure in the city limits. Which means, if that 80 year old widow who lives on a fixed income has her window on her shed broken out, she will have to come up with the money to fix it properly, with new glass, whereas before, she would have just been able to put up a piece of plywood she had lying around the garage. And even though the city will most likely not "actively" look for violations of this ordinance, it could be used as a way for a nasty neighbor to cause you undue stress by turning you in because of your broken shed window.
Can it be enforced on windows broken before the ordinance becomes law, and if so, how will they know if it was broken before the new ordinance took effect?
Good arguments
I would just say that its possible to come up with arguments against anything.
You have to start somewhere.
There will be problems, there will be loopholes, there will be abuses.
This is as good of a starting place as any.
Do you know the answers to the questions posed by the second poster (last paragraph)?
Which means, if that 80 year old ble to put up a piece of plywood she had lying around the garage.
>>>>>>>
IF she had it laying around ... most likely she would have to hire someone, how many 80 year old women have pieces of plywood layng around?
not sure it would cost more to have someone put in glass or plywood.
all anyone has to do is talk to the city and make arrangements for this sort of thing ..
>>>>>>>>
it could be used as a way for a nasty neighbor to cause you undue stress by turning you in because of your broken shed window.
>>>>
yup that could happen,
and probably will happen.
so should we let the town rot away because of that?
>>>>>
Can it be enforced on windows broken before the ordinance becomes law, and if so, how will they know if it was broken before the new ordinance took effect?
>>
The ordinance addresses that.
You can tell if a window has been broken out a long time or a short time...
>>>
"You can tell if a window has been broken out a long time or a short time..."
You can? How much does it cost to bring in the W.C.S.I. (Window Crime Scene Investigators)????
Just wait until someone writes an ordinance against having a front yard full of flowers instead of grass. I, personally, think it's great. However, some think that it is odd (not the normal way of keeping your AC lawn). How long before they are outlawing that, too? Maybe they think a yard full of flowers, flamingos and bushes next door could bring down their property values? How would you feel if they came over and mowed them all off? Then, they would bill you $100.
My statements seem outrageous at this point, but just wait a couple of years and see where we are at. We may have laws against certain colors of paint, certain styles of shingles and who knows what else.
well if the majority in town agreed, then i guess it would be that way.
i lived on hilton head island, in s..c,
they had rules for everything.
you couldnt have a yard full of flowers there, like we have.
only certain color houses allowed, no more than two floors, only certain type materials etc., probably even rules on what kind of flowers you could have and where you could have them.
it was too much control, but it looked great
in the commercial area there were even more rules.
no lighting on signs, so it was hard to even find mcdonald at night.
certainly no neon or flashing things.
just depends on what the community standards are.
but it is on the beach. we rented a two bedroom apt., that was nothing special and it cost 800 a month, but it was a block from the beach.
a "cheap" house there would be something like 300,000-400,000.
they sell apartments for 100,000 and more.
One man's art is another man's trashy yard. Who are we to decide how our neighbor decorates his or her yard (flamigos, etc).
Thays the problem majority of citizens. When has there ever been a majority of the people turn out to vote or even voice their opinion about what the city does. And will the city get in between two neighbors and get them to work togather with out a fine involved and that does not work most of the time, they just wait and call and complain again and again. And when did a neighbor have his neighbors best intrest in mind, maybe 2% of the time the rest is spite.
We already protected the grocerie store in this economic down time by limiting the chicken you can have in your back yard, oh yea thats right only a hand full of folks did that, wonder whats going to happen to home gardening for your familys. one tamato plpant and one cabbage plant. Next thing you know the three Amigos will tell you how many children you can have here in GOOD OLE ark city.
That is the question.
Do we have a right to do that?
Maybe we do?
Maybe not?
If it is going to affect property values in the area, then it infringes on the rights of neighbors.
I think this question is the real question that we need to answer as a community.
Last anonymous poster made a good point. Too many people are not aware of what is going on at city hall. Ordinances could be passed which effect them, and they would not have a clue until it was too late.
I believe that pro-active and aggressive citizens who are for tightening the grip on Ark City are out there voicing their opinion and making things happen. I speak to MANY people who would like to see the government back off. Problem is, they usually are not aware or involved in AC politics.
Here's a thought........if people would take care of their property then we wouldn't need ordiances. Unfortunately too many people have the mentality that "it's mine I can do what I want" But what you do does affect others and that is why there is a need for the government to make laws that are deemed silly to those of us that do take care of stuff.
The problem, to me, is the small town mentality that everyone wants change but yet when it happens or looks as though change is coming people scream. The best way to help our town become more attractive and thus allow us to recruit more businesses, rather downtown or big box stores, is to give the appearance that we care about out city and the way it looks. Let's look more inviting to those driving through or wanting to make this area their home also.
If you visit towns where their downtown areas are thriving you will see that the buildings are taken care of. I think it can have a trickle down affect...downtown starts looking nicer and then in other areas of town people will begin taking better care of their place.
I keep hearing a nasty little rumor going around about Ark City. People keep saying that 50-70% of the homes in the city limits are rental properties. I have not been able to confirm or deny that. However, standing in my yard and counting the homes I can see around my block, 8 out of 11 are rentals. Perhaps someone here can find that data?
What's my point? Renters, for the most part, do not care about the condition of their yards or homes. Why? It's not their legal responsibility. If they do not mow, the landlord gets the bill. Maintenance is the landlords responsibility, too. On the other hand, why should landlords fix up their properties for renters to destroy? Which many do!
If the city makes landlords repair, maintain and mow their properties that the renters keep tearing up, soon they will sell (or try to) and invest somewhere else. At some point, their will be no profit in renting. Then what will we have? A ghost town or a bunch of homeless (but employed) citizens? I guess they could just keep raising the rent, but will the renters be able to afford it?
If this rumor is true, then perhaps city hall is barking up the wrong tree. Maybe they should ask themselves why we have so many renters and so few homeowners. I recently read an article about the impact of the casino's on AC. The realtor interviewed said that their has been an increased demand for RENTAL property. Hmmmm.....
I guess I am going to beg to differ with the diagnosis of "small town mentality". We fit the profile for the species known as "Americans".
Most of my adult life I have had some elevated level of interest in politics. Since the late 70’s I’ve heard the laments and petitions for change, especially regarding the way we are governed.
People advocate for change, blame the incumbents for all that ails them and, then, somewhere between 1 and 3 out of ten will go and vote their frustration. We do it for national elections, state elections and (in full demonstration of consistency) local elections.
Then it happens. Someone elected person actually presents a "change proposal". Invariably, there is an outcry against it. And, not surprisingly, the outcry comes from the folks most affected by change whose lives will have to absorb some modification and loss of entitlement.
Not in my backyard (NIMBY), Citizens Against Virtually Everything (CAVE) and Oh No don't take away my program (no acronym).
It's what happens in America with Americans and it is what hamstrings government as folks who have a passion for societal change via politics seek compromise between what they to believe to be an important accomplishment and the things they fear will cost them an election before they can complete their mission.
Perhaps the only flaw with our current local 5 member council is the imbalance between the time spent studying data versus face time with their neighbors who placed a vote of confidence with these elected officials.
I was once told, “If you plan to preach for twenty minutes you ought to have given 3 hours of sermon preparation.” That's the ratio.
Perhaps for public service it should be one our of face time with constituents for every twenty minutes spent campaigning for votes.
I may be the odd duck but I see a method to their madness and somewhat understand why they feel compelled to move in that direction.
It's a tough economic time for ol Ark City and unpopular decisions have to be made. Everyone wants the highest level of accountability from government and less taxation.
We have elected the cutters and slashers. But if we ever expect to compete and to build in the future, we need to be in the optimum position to do so. To keep trying to get by with "not quite enough" (i.e. Eco Dev. program funding) is fruitless.
It can get us stuff but it can't get us the Big Stuff that resurrects an economy. Cutters and slashers need to be succeeded eventually by builders and visionaries.
There is a fair amount of rental property. Ive not seen any stats. I dont even know what would be "normal."
From what I have seen, the "problem" houses are not rental houses. Many of the "problem" houses dont have anyone living in them.
I think absentee owners are a greater problem.
But even with that, there seems to be a shortage in a certain type of rental property.
We have a new sports editor coming from Parsons. He needs a 3-4 bedroom house. He has not been able to find one, so he may end up living in Winfield.
We can make excuses all day long. If people wont take care of their property they will have to be forced to. I really don't have a problem with that.
How many of those abandoned homes used to be rentals? I think they have already been through the process. The owners tried renting them out in order to keep them, but found out the rent did not pay for the damage or the trouble and gave up. Now the homes sit. An empty home deteriorates at a much faster rate than one lived in.
I know this is personal (please do not answer), but why is the sports editor not buying? I took a class once in college on problem solving. The first step is to take your problem and ask why 5 times. This gets you to the root of the problem so you know where to start "fixing".
I just wonder if AC would benefit from laws protecting landlords from renters? Perhaps the mowing bill should go to the tenant and not necessarily the property owner. Perhaps the renters need to be held more accountable for damage done to the property. Perhaps renters need to be held accountable for the rent they owe! I do not know if these laws are possible, but I'm curious to see the results. Perhaps landlords would be more eager to invest time and money. Perhaps some of the empty houses would be lived in, again.
The rental rate is about 30%. The vacancy rate is 14.8%, which is about twice as high as Winfield's.
I would say it is a combination of both of these with a few owners who don't take care of their house, too.
I think we have more houses than people. The population has declined since we had refineries and more packing houses here.
and a lot of them have been allowed to deteriorate, and that is the problem.
Are you a landlord keeli :) :)
i also hear renters say they should be protected from landlords.
I do want to answer the question about the sports ed. Generally it isnt a good idea to just go somewhere you are not familiar with and buy a house. Its better to rent for awhile so you can find out more about the area. And to see if you really like the job etc.
The answer there is just good personal economic policy.
He may buy eventually.
I agree with that jj. Unless you can guarantee that you'll love the place and the job, you're better off renting.
p.s.
We do have a few landlords that could be reminded that they need to keep up the outsides of the homes that they rent. (scraping and painting, trees, and wiring)
Especially if the rentor is keeping his/her part of the bargain. I think what is happening is that some of the landlords have too many houses, and not enough unction to keep it up.
Perhaps, we need to address Landlords. :( or :) which ever side the aisle you are on.
when city hall starts letting everything around town fall apart, and tells you lack of funds or help, then it makes the citizens care less also. if the brick street in front of your house has bricks out all over, grass growing all over, etc, or the canal next to you has weeds 10 ft higher than the top (which mr. baugher told me was due to lack of funds and help) well that carrys over and causes resentment with citizens also when they are forced to do something or charged for it (no lack of funds or help when the city is gonna make money from it I guess) i still do my part, but am frustrated to see this city looking the worst i have ever seen. go by some city buildings, the water plant by paris park is a filthy mess out front for one. this is an example of poor leadership or leaders NOT doing the job they are paid to do
I am not a landlord, at least not yet. I have looked into it, but very many people warn me against it. From what I hear, many start out with good intentions of keeping nice rental properties. After they are burned by renters over and over, they tell me they have come to realize that it's not worth it. They say some people just prefer to live in dumps and pay the same rent for them.
Now, I DO know some great renters. The kind who keep the bills paid and keep their places tidey. It just seems they are few and far between.
Ok, I'm probably going to look like an idiot spouting off about things I'm not sure of. However, I have also been told that the law does protect the renters quite a bit, already. I hear it takes quite a while to get a non-paying renter out and that it is nearly impossible to get paid back rent. Also, if a renter does not like the condition of the property they can move out (if lease agreement is up?).
Also, does it seem that monthly rent is very low for AC? I do not think it has gone up proportionally with inflation, tax increases, etc. Isn't Winfield much higher? It's been a while since I have rented.
I think rent is very cheap here.
We rented a dump in Winfield for 6 months while we looked for a house to buy in Ark City. It was very cheap
We left the place better than we found it.
The Landlord was shocked.
It goes both ways I guess. There's good and bad in both renters and landlords.
But rents and house prices are cheap here.
We got a lot bigger and nicer house here for the same amount we had payed in another state.
However, while the city is going around looking for things to fix up, I'm sure they will notice that there are some 'quite unsightly' houses that perhaps could use just a little scraping and a coat or two of paint. (rental housing)
You've never really lived until you have rented a house out in Ark City. If the maintenance doesn't eat you up, the damage from the renters will. Nobody, and I mean it, will mow yards, so you have to. If you have plaster expect it to get busted up immediately. I've had people steal fixtures off the walls because they looked like Restoration Hardware and they thought they were valuable. Wood floors? Instantly destroyed.
I've had people call electricians on emergency call at night to reset circuit breakers. I've had them call plumbers for no good reason at all only to find out they probably just split the plumber's bill with the renter, and you know who you are. I've had them let the toilet overflow for days and ruin the carpet, with no phone call, no nothing.
I've had people stiff me for months of rent and on and on. The rent is so cheap and the taxes so high, (remember no homestead exemptions for rental properties, so you are paying higher than everybody else) that you will lose your butt unless you are a slumlord renting out a 1935 era $20,000 house. That is why rentals in AC are crappy.
You hire someone to look after the house and they will let their kids use it for beer parties and other much worse things. Yeah, been there too.
I don't know why anyone with property in AC would rent it out. Too much trouble and costs too much money.
ive heard horror stories on both sides of the rental issue.
ive got horror stories as a renter.
thats why you need contracts for both parties.
On the other hand, there's at least one property which is rumored to be available to rent for between $1,000 and $2,000 a month, with an option to own. It's not a new home, and it's not in the more upscale neighborhoods. It's at Central & B Streets. It's appears to be a very nice house, and looks to be in good condition, but how can that kind of rent be justified in that area? Who in Ark City has the money to rent a house at such a price? How do you account for the disparity?
being "available" for so much, and "renting" for so much may be very different things :)
maybe its really nice on the inside.
it is interesting that in ark city you may have a house worth over $200,000 beside a house worth $20,000.
Uh... It don't work that way.
Rent with an option to own?
If the house is for sale, it is for sale. You can get an option to buy, but not an option to own. In the real world, rent is rent and principle and interest is P&I.
The only way you have rent applied to purchase without a purchase agreement or mortgage is in a con game.
I'll bet it is empty.
No sucker yet.
Or maybe the story got twisted.
One must be careful about rent to own or contract for deed. There are a few in this town who like to get large downpayments, charge outrageous interest rates and then just sit back and count the days til you default. Some people make good money doing this. I'm not pointing fingers at Central and B, though. I have not checked to see who owns it. It does appear to be a very nice home on the outside. Oh, and I think that area of B street is very upscale for AC. Any better, and you'd have to go outside the city limits.
it is interesting that in ark city you may have a house worth over $200,000 beside a house worth $20,000.
I have always been told that the larger homes on the corner were built first. The smaller homes were built later when the original property owner broke up their land and sold it off. Maybe that's why?
Post a Comment